From owner-freebsd-net@freebsd.org  Tue Jan 19 22:16:09 2016
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-net@freebsd.org>
Delivered-To: freebsd-net@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org
 [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1])
 by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B45D4A89ABD
 for <freebsd-net@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org>;
 Tue, 19 Jan 2016 22:16:09 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from c2h@romeo.emu.st)
Received: from f5.bushwire.net (f5.bushwire.net [IPv6:2607:fc50:1000:5b00::2])
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B13F19D3
 for <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 22:16:09 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from c2h@romeo.emu.st)
Received: by f5.bushwire.net (Postfix, from userid 1001)
 id 640E4AC909; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 14:16:08 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/simple; d=emu.st; s=2015;
 t=1453241768; bh=j7iNw7TIHYvCedcHKRMeft4lRsU=;
 h=Comments:Received:Date:Message-ID:From:To:Subject:References:
 MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To;
 b=mkEN7nvjIZG1yXu6nSR5G8DlpOoSdIcVCMRSsJwe/fYPbw87dePX1p8Vaqo3cN7sz
 5Q8rqaF/oCosHoIKAqeLdEaURO7qxZQwFujBQ3C4LZwa7uDvmNS8o0LraFJKYLBdNO
 seYGB4OPpScTdaxGCvCk7LhS7WUk/YYkLZGug6wk=ug6wk=
Comments: QMDA 0.3
Received: (qmail 20609 invoked by uid 1001); 19 Jan 2016 22:16:08 -0000
Date: 19 Jan 2016 22:16:08 +0000
Message-ID: <20160119221608.20608.qmail@f5-external.bushwire.net>
From: "Mark Delany" <c2h@romeo.emu.st>
To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Does FreeBSD have sendmmsg or recvmmsg system calls?
References: <20160113080349.GC72455@kib.kiev.ua>
 <CAP=KkTxVaqZvigg78Dg+v8kuTCaZyky8x15NHqD9uabuRKRkMw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20160116195657.GJ3942@kib.kiev.ua>
 <20160116202534.GK3942@kib.kiev.ua>
 <20160117211853.GA37847@stack.nl>
 <20160118044826.GS3942@kib.kiev.ua>
 <CAP=KkTy3J=k7hokGhohcGXv+WLnaxJmiAPxqmX9FHt7k0=Dp7Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <20160118140811.GW3942@kib.kiev.ua>
 <CAP=KkTzLCOnJVqt5F3ZuuZUiwkmWcne2Ynpi6-daE2jTzSBtfw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20160119220049.GA56408@stack.nl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20160119220049.GA56408@stack.nl>
X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20
Precedence: list
List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD <freebsd-net.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-net>,
 <mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-net/>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-net@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net>,
 <mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 22:16:09 -0000

On 19Jan16, Jilles Tjoelker allegedly wrote:

> I think the recv.2 and send.2 man pages are long enough as they are, and
> separate recvmmsg.3 and sendmmsg.3 pages will be clearer. This is also
> because recvmmsg/sendmmsg can be ignored when performance is good enough
> without them. This differs from what Konstantin thinks.

If they are to be made separate man pages can I suggest that the
recv/send(2) manpages be changes to at least make early reference to
the *mmsg() calls?

Purely as marketing. My perception is that awareness of the *mmsg()
calls is rather limited.


Mark.