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>