From owner-freebsd-net@freebsd.org Wed Jan 20 10:36:56 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCA5AA89866 for ; Wed, 20 Jan 2016 10:36:56 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from chagin.dmitry@gmail.com) Received: from mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (mailman.ysv.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::50:5]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B915A10B7 for ; Wed, 20 Jan 2016 10:36:56 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from chagin.dmitry@gmail.com) Received: by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) id B83FAA89865; Wed, 20 Jan 2016 10:36:56 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: net@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F1D2A89860; Wed, 20 Jan 2016 10:36:56 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from chagin.dmitry@gmail.com) Received: from mail-ig0-x22e.google.com (mail-ig0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6537A10B6; Wed, 20 Jan 2016 10:36:56 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from chagin.dmitry@gmail.com) Received: by mail-ig0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id z14so98573846igp.1; Wed, 20 Jan 2016 02:36:56 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=WyZEfFBDMONX4ohADRokt0i8vFA21mKNiz5jHtizpwU=; b=0ym1B6tTPv+vMlj/PBvOa0KmUiPJmBx+qP2/jAlNgFp797oyDFEwgKKsNnZuVqP9UO p1YzYAiMq9PEixz07Z44qL140wnpsuZqazcJWbtzQxp+G6CRFlsu+s1N9fit43gf/+1d pwtTh6tBQ6NfQt2C6LlvZ3SpYxxlm1GVcH4Q3I+FCDZ4/H/HbWkpVAerC8LxPyx4yMFq kSiOkUbU886tWc7rbCYqiBnTQocruIWrGl30KKSucTlI2Nhy6wvmnbAsxZ2h1fW8J7Ks uPiuiBCzmUSvMYg1sUI4ecDlE0GG3r0A0XYxnK2Hi4fm6WFLavqZ1eBv++foir16y0IY DWoQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=WyZEfFBDMONX4ohADRokt0i8vFA21mKNiz5jHtizpwU=; b=cIhf9rAEJcv+je7Fampm1R4qdf7Vzw+Z9T1KU4QPkcdM31Y8oQnMpWgtWR9Of/aiI3 1KGteMFB/8TpvtyqwhGaad761D0NnV8nWYEwsX1VlvDNg3tbIk3XrfxV1E8tQeQM4F+I hglD/+YPchgsbbftMisLpw1fLuSq3C7jvpMQDO5KX++YwQo1ZcyTHQR1qRU1HGOUA6S1 teRzoyl1RvTP2lODjHLXTxQF6wMSq+VtU2XPwLe+QuT4DER6Y+4xjbQ8/26QDQ4qTqvf R4laVKBql0juHlK5LKtxi0ZjdHjoN80UPAiCHbGngvlfYvRI+f5xSiOmRGYKrvKSNxvC OmGA== X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOS0Ti5kB5pxEzI9elX1pZsxsxBFD3q4b5bH8nIaHCBd2lMBtYLXxdzJep2IRmI9n+aekBTsoHWG5Ym5eg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.21.10 with SMTP id r10mr2928653ige.93.1453286215854; Wed, 20 Jan 2016 02:36:55 -0800 (PST) Sender: chagin.dmitry@gmail.com Received: by 10.79.82.130 with HTTP; Wed, 20 Jan 2016 02:36:55 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <20160108204606.G2420@besplex.bde.org> <20160113080349.GC72455@kib.kiev.ua> <20160116195657.GJ3942@kib.kiev.ua> <20160116202534.GK3942@kib.kiev.ua> <20160117211853.GA37847@stack.nl> <20160118044826.GS3942@kib.kiev.ua> <20160118140811.GW3942@kib.kiev.ua> Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 13:36:55 +0300 X-Google-Sender-Auth: EbHlJ9b9lzgCZi_O4I6WYJ0WkL0 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Does FreeBSD have sendmmsg or recvmmsg system calls? From: Dmitry Chagin To: Boris Astardzhiev Cc: Konstantin Belousov , threads@freebsd.org, net@freebsd.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.20 X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 10:36:57 -0000 2016-01-19 14:58 GMT+03:00 Boris Astardzhiev : > Hello, > > I removed the pthread_testcancel() calls and cut the interposing > stuff from my patch as suggested. I extended the send/recv(2) manpages > regarding > the mm calls. Comments and suggestions? > > btw, what is the reason to not make this functions as a system call? seems that calling [xxxx]msg syscalls in a loop will be a considerable overhead