On Wed, 24 Jan 2001, Sasi Peter wrote: > On 14 Jan 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > The only obvious use for it is file serving, and as high-performance > > file serving tends to end up as a kernel module in the end anyway (the > > only hold-out is samba, and that's been discussed too), "sendfile()" > > really is more a proof of concept than anything else. > > No plans for samba to use sendfile? Even better make it a tux-like module? > (that would enable Netware-Linux like performance with the standard > kernel... would be cool afterall ;) AIUI, Jeff Merkey was working on loading "userspace" apps into the kernel to tackle this sort of problem generically. I don't know if he's tried it with Samba - the forking would probably be a problem... James. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Ingo Molnar
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Felix von Leitner
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Jamie Lokier
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Felix von Leitner
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? David L. Parsley
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Jakub Jelinek
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? David L. Parsley
- RE: Is sendfile all that sexy? Laramie Leavitt
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? dean gaudet
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Sasi Peter
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? James Sutherland
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Anton Blanchard
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Sasi Peter
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Anton Blanchard
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? David S. Miller
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Anton Blanchard
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Pavel Machek
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? jamal
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Pavel Machek
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Andries . Brouwer
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Ton Hospel