Date: 19 Jan 2016 22:16:08 +0000 From: "Mark Delany" <c2h@romeo.emu.st> To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Does FreeBSD have sendmmsg or recvmmsg system calls? Message-ID: <20160119221608.20608.qmail@f5-external.bushwire.net> In-Reply-To: <20160119220049.GA56408@stack.nl> References: <20160113080349.GC72455@kib.kiev.ua> <CAP=KkTxVaqZvigg78Dg%2Bv8kuTCaZyky8x15NHqD9uabuRKRkMw@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%2BWLnaxJmiAPxqmX9FHt7k0=Dp7Q@mail.gmail.com> <20160118140811.GW3942@kib.kiev.ua> <CAP=KkTzLCOnJVqt5F3ZuuZUiwkmWcne2Ynpi6-daE2jTzSBtfw@mail.gmail.com> <20160119220049.GA56408@stack.nl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20160119221608.20608.qmail>