Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2002 00:50:35 -0800 (PST) From: Nate Lawson <nate@root.org> To: Michael Ranner <mranner@inode.at> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: setattr() syscall as proposed by phk Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0212150042291.41793-100000@root.org> In-Reply-To: <200212141624.46162.mranner@inode.at>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 14 Dec 2002, Michael Ranner wrote: > Hi there! > > I have implemented the setattr(), lsetattr() and fsetattr() syscalls for > 4.7 and 5.0. You can review my code on http://www.ranner.jawa.at/freebsd.php. > > Comments and suggestions are welcome. I don't mean to be rude but I doubt the utility of this whole plan. dump/restore are done on disk devices which are at least an order of magnitude slower than a syscall boundary crossing. Going from 4 syscalls to 1 can't make a bit of difference in restore(8) performance. So why is this faster? Something is likely slowing namei() down. However, this should be fixed by improving namei() or whichever subsystem is slowing restore down. Adding new syscalls is not the right answer. -Nate To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0212150042291.41793-100000>