From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Roman V. Shaposhnick" <vugluskr@unicorn.math.spbu.ru>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] sendfile interface
Message-ID: <20030224065045.A5493@unicorn.math.spbu.ru>
References: <20030220013204.A6122@unicorn.math.spbu.ru>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
In-Reply-To: <20030220013204.A6122@unicorn.math.spbu.ru>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 06:50:45 +0300
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 6f689dd4-eacb-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

Wow! No reply whatsoever :-( Does it mean that it's completely impossible
to make sense out of scattered-read hardware (like some network cards
for example) under Plan9 ?

I understand that performance could be sacrificed for clarity, but was
it the case here ?

Thanks,
Roman.

On Thu, Feb 20, 2003 at 01:32:04AM +0300, Roman V. Shaposhnick wrote:
> While studying how Linux implements sendfile(2), I couldn't help
> but notice, that it is yet another hack a'la mmap. "There must
> be a better way to do that" I though at the moment.
>
> Now, I imagine, that for Plan9 there should be no problem telling
> kernel that one Chan should server as an "alias", or proxy if you
> will, for another one. By doing that, it should be possible to
> eliminate the whole "copy to userland buffer; copy back to kernel"
> routine and it could be even possible to utilize hardware
> scattered-write. How easy it will be for network connections ? Or may
> be I'm stretching my imagination too far, and there's no really
> a better way to do it. Please comment.
>
> Thanks,
> Roman.