Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 08:58:08 -0700 (PDT) From: John Polstra <jdp@polstra.com> To: net@freebsd.org Cc: rwatson@freebsd.org Subject: Re: NFS client code calls sosend() directly... Message-ID: <200210031558.g93Fw8ER001397@vashon.polstra.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1021002161746.46964K-100000@fledge.watson.org> References: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1021002161746.46964K-100000@fledge.watson.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In article <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1021002161746.46964K-100000@fledge.watson.org>, Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.ORG> wrote: > On Wed, 2 Oct 2002, Garrett Wollman wrote: > > > <<On Wed, 2 Oct 2002 14:26:49 -0400 (EDT), Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> said: > > > > > protocols have the option of implementing pru_sosend() using the central > > > sosend(), or providing their own optimized implementation. However, the > > > exception to this appears to be in the nfsclient code, where sosend is > > > invoked directly on the socket: > > > > The NFS code is hairy and evil and since I don't use it I didn't want to > > touch it when I made that change several years ago. > > I guess my question then is: I'd like to clean this up. Is the approach > I'm suggesting correct? FWIW, your approach is what the ng_ksocket node does. I've used it before and it worked fine for me. John -- John Polstra John D. Polstra & Co., Inc. Seattle, Washington USA "Disappointment is a good sign of basic intelligence." -- Chögyam Trungpa To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200210031558.g93Fw8ER001397>