From owner-freebsd-arch Sat Mar 17 9: 7:51 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from prism.flugsvamp.com (cb58709-a.mdsn1.wi.home.com [24.17.241.9]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 948C237B719 for ; Sat, 17 Mar 2001 09:07:48 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jlemon@flugsvamp.com) Received: (from jlemon@localhost) by prism.flugsvamp.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) id f2HH4Im97804; Sat, 17 Mar 2001 11:04:18 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from jlemon) Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 11:04:18 -0600 From: Jonathan Lemon To: Maxime Henrion Cc: arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Proposal for a new syscall Message-ID: <20010317110418.Z82645@prism.flugsvamp.com> References: <20010317164411.A420@nebula.cybercable.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre2i In-Reply-To: <20010317164411.A420@nebula.cybercable.fr> Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Sat, Mar 17, 2001 at 04:44:11PM +0100, Maxime Henrion wrote: > Hello, > > While I was writing a network application, I was thinking that it would > be nice to have a syscall that could "bind" two file descriptors, of any > type (socket, file...), a bit like funopen() does in the libc. Having > such a syscall in the kernel would allow to implement "zero-copy" > wherever it is feasible. > > Then, sendfile() would just be a particular case of this syscall, where > the input fd is a file and the output fd is a socket, and it could be > rewritten using it. > > Do you think this makes sense and it would be useful to have ? Yes, but it is decidedly non-trivial to implement. -- Jonathan To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message