Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 04 Mar 2003 23:50:57 -0600
From:      "Alan L. Cox" <alc@imimic.com>
To:        Bosko Milekic <bmilekic@unixdaemons.com>
Cc:        Sean Chittenden <sean@chittenden.org>, arch@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Should sendfile() to return ENOBUFS?
Message-ID:  <3E659041.EC63D4E0@imimic.com>
References:  <3E64FEA0.CCA21C7@imimic.com> <20030304215118.GJ79234@perrin.int.nxad.com> <20030304170837.A10281@unixdaemons.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Bosko Milekic wrote:
> ...
>   What about only re-using the already allocated page if the timestamp
>   for the last modification matches the currently stored one? (i.e.,
>   store the timestamp in the auxilary structure).  I'm not sure this
>   would work in all cases, but it would serve as an OK compromise; or
>   maybe I'm just overlooking something?
> 

I don't see the need for this.  The vm_object being used in sendfile()
is tied to the file's vnode.  Thus, changes to the file will affect the
vm_object used by sendfile().

Also, the sf_buf changes that I described have no effect on sendfile()'s
data coherence.  It remains the same.

Alan

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3E659041.EC63D4E0>