Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 14:03:15 +0400 (MSD) From: Igor Sysoev <is@rambler-co.ru> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: sendfile(2) SF_NOPUSH flag proposal Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0305281346500.50420-100000@is> In-Reply-To: <3ED47CAA.30B03B8E@mindspring.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 28 May 2003, Terry Lambert wrote: > Igor Sysoev wrote: > > Really ? I think that on NetBSD, Darwin, and MacOS X I would get: > > ----- > > warning: implicit declaration of function `sendfile' > > I think on NetBSD and OpenBSD, a single search-engine query > would show you three experimental implementations, all of > which have the FreeBSD syntax. I did not found any. > The Darwin/MacOS X is a no-brainer: someone will get around > to it eventually; the big barrier is external mbufs, and > those are really trivial to implement (IMO; I've done it on > three separate occasions in different code bases, now). If someone will eventually implement on NetBSD, OpenBSD or Darwin/MacOS X the FreeBSD compatible sendfile() then he can simply ignore any unsupported flags. As well as FreeBSD's rfork() implementation ignores some plan9 flags. > > On Solaris and Linux I will get: > > ----- > > too many arguments to function `sendfile' > > Yes, the argument lists aren't the same. AIX and MVS both > have identical interfaces, though. But different with FreeBSD, right ? It was be very strange if IBM made different send_file() interfaces for its own systems. > > sendfile() is very and very unportable interface. > > I have no doubt that sendfile(2) will eventually be standardized > by some well-intentioned standards body, and that the standard > will not include implementation-bug-based flags definitions. So what ? Developer would wrote yet more #define or wrapper for POSIX sendfile(). > > And #define can hide any flags. > > Code written that way is not portable, it has been ported. > There is a big difference. Well, but it's the same thing I told you. If developer want to use sendfile() he should be ready that he needs to port its source. He can make easy port with #define or harder port with wrapper. > Why are you so dead-set on adding crufty flags, when three > people who have been in that code before (I back-ported the > external mbuf code and sendfile to FreeBSD 4.2 and 4.3 at > one point; Matt has lived in that code; Peter had his nose > in for quite a while; etc.) say that it's broken, and the > correct thing to do is to fix it, not add a bunch of kludge > code to work around the bugs that shouldn't be there in the > first place? Well, how do your code handle the partially filled file packets ? Igor Sysoev http://sysoev.ru/en/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0305281346500.50420-100000>