From owner-freebsd-hackers  Sat Apr 22 19:39:27 2000
Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Received: from mail.beattie-home.net (148.129.249.209.fastpoint.net [209.249.129.148])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 838A337B6AB
	for <hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>; Sat, 22 Apr 2000 19:39:25 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from beattie@beattie-home.net)
Received: from raven.pdx.beattie-home.net (raven.pdx.beattie-home.net [192.168.0.1])
	by mail.beattie-home.net (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 4F64BA913; Sat, 22 Apr 2000 19:39:28 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 19:41:48 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Beattie <beattie@beattie-home.net>
X-Sender: beattie@raven.pdx.beattie-home.net
To: Michael Bacarella <mbac@nyct.net>
Cc: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com>,
	Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net>,
	Kevin Day <toasty@dragondata.com>, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: Double buffered cp(1)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0004221320250.38433-100000@bsd1.nyct.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0004221941220.32955-100000@raven.pdx.beattie-home.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

On Sat, 22 Apr 2000, Michael Bacarella wrote:

> It seems silly to implement something as trivial and straightforward as
> copying a file in userland. The process designated to copy a file just
> sits in a tight loop invoking the read()/write() syscalls
> repeatedly. Since this operation is already system bound and very simple,
> what's the arguement against absorbing it into the kernel?
>

VMS
 



To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message