Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 14:04:33 +0100 From: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@iet.unipi.it> To: Dag-Erling Sm??rgrav <des@des.no> Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, Ed Schouten <ed@80386.nl>, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, Hajimu UMEMOTO <ume@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: the need for safe dynamic string libraries Message-ID: <20091207130433.GA71902@onelab2.iet.unipi.it> In-Reply-To: <86ein7t5m5.fsf@ds4.des.no> References: <200912052009.nB5K9okL098577@svn.freebsd.org> <ygek4wzpdv3.wl%ume@mahoroba.org> <20091207055752.GD64905@hoeg.nl> <20091207085927.GC57764@onelab2.iet.unipi.it> <86iqcjt93c.fsf@ds4.des.no> <20091207105343.GA62012@onelab2.iet.unipi.it> <86ein7t5m5.fsf@ds4.des.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Dec 07, 2009 at 11:56:18AM +0100, Dag-Erling Sm??rgrav wrote: > Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@iet.unipi.it> writes: > > What do you mean exactly ? > > When libsbuf was ported to userland, sbuf_printf() was pessimized due to > the limitations of libc's printf(). This makes certain parts of but, isn't this an implementation detail ? What prevents the same API to have two different implementation, one for kernel, one for userland ? cheers luigi > pseudofs extremely inefficient: for instance, if you read from a > /proc/whatever that's backed by an sbuf, it has to generate the entire > file even if you only asked for a small chunk at a large offset. > > DES > -- > Dag-Erling Sm??rgrav - des@des.no
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20091207130433.GA71902>