Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 06:06:15 +1000 From: Peter Jeremy <peterjeremy@optushome.com.au> To: Igor Sysoev <is@rambler-co.ru> Cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: sendfile(2) SF_NOPUSH flag proposal Message-ID: <20030529200615.GC22178@cirb503493.alcatel.com.au> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0305292133150.57367-100000@is> References: <3ED62AFE.187A40F9@mindspring.com> <Pine.BSF.4.21.0305292133150.57367-100000@is>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, May 29, 2003 at 09:35:28PM +0400, Igor Sysoev wrote: >> But more to the point, so far you are the only one who is not >> saying that sendfile() needs to be fixed, instead of kludged. > >By the way I do not see that Peter Jeremy said that sendfile() needs >to be fixed, he said only that my flags are needless and I should >prove their usefulness. I admit I never said sendfile() was broken - only because I wasn't familiar enough with either its current behaviour or with the most desirable behaviour. But instead of arguing semantics, how about providing some hard data on why your changes should be applied (as I requested in my first post). So far you have between 4 and 8 people who have argued against your changes (depending on how you count). You have yet to come up with any people or hard facts to back up your position. As far as I am concerned, unless and until you manage to produce something concrete to back up your assertions, this thread has outlived its usefulness. Peter
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030529200615.GC22178>