Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 02:08:58 -0700 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: Igor Sysoev <is@rambler-co.ru> Cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: sendfile(2) SF_NOPUSH flag proposal Message-ID: <3ED47CAA.30B03B8E@mindspring.com> References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0305281140420.50420-100000@is>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Igor Sysoev wrote: > Really ? I think that on NetBSD, Darwin, and MacOS X I would get: > ----- > warning: implicit declaration of function `sendfile' I think on NetBSD and OpenBSD, a single search-engine query would show you three experimental implementations, all of which have the FreeBSD syntax. The Darwin/MacOS X is a no-brainer: someone will get around to it eventually; the big barrier is external mbufs, and those are really trivial to implement (IMO; I've done it on three separate occasions in different code bases, now). > On Solaris and Linux I will get: > ----- > too many arguments to function `sendfile' Yes, the argument lists aren't the same. AIX and MVS both have identical interfaces, though. > sendfile() is very and very unportable interface. I have no doubt that sendfile(2) will eventually be standardized by some well-intentioned standards body, and that the standard will not include implementation-bug-based flags definitions. > And #define can hide any flags. Code written that way is not portable, it has been ported. There is a big difference. Why are you so dead-set on adding crufty flags, when three people who have been in that code before (I back-ported the external mbuf code and sendfile to FreeBSD 4.2 and 4.3 at one point; Matt has lived in that code; Peter had his nose in for quite a while; etc.) say that it's broken, and the correct thing to do is to fix it, not add a bunch of kludge code to work around the bugs that shouldn't be there in the first place? -- Terry
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3ED47CAA.30B03B8E>