Linux-kernel mailing list archive 1999-25,: Re: Why khttpd is a bad idea (was a pointless argument about

# Re: Why khttpd is a bad idea (was a pointless argument about

Marek Habersack (grendel@vip.net.pl)
Sun, 20 Jun 1999 14:23:01 +0200

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Marek Habersack: "Re: Why khttpd is a bad idea"
- Previous message: Stephen.Rothwell@canb.auug.org.au: "Re: [PATCH] New APM patch for testing"
- In reply to: Philip Blundell: "Re: Why khttpd is a bad idea (was a pointless argument about"

--EeQfGwPcQSOJBaQU
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

* Philip Blundell said:
> >You wouldn't need them if the server is in the kernel. At the very least,
> >there wouldn't be any need for wrapping the kernel calls with user-space
> >functions - again, conservation of space and time.
>=20
> If the handful of bytes it takes to wrap a syscall is a serious concern f=
or=20
> you then Linux is probably not the right platform for your application.
Hmm... I was talking about an embedded system where every byte is precious,
and every CPU clock saved on context switching is a win.

marek

--EeQfGwPcQSOJBaQU
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3ia

iQCVAwUBN2zdJZ1EuNB7BOoNAQFbfAP7Bez3ze1hZzaSIzzgpXEuYxi1U2dXSQJ9
38RLnHslKTSdYX6xfDjNWqu5c0+ERlzaAVQOjtrTJt0A/kIN8sej/kGwRwTxB+vi
sHRWLXpKu3pjDgmk8FMnOyhsk+hJAxxUCRbb2j3OcGH0Pi0ygqUx1K6WCsx54G8O
mY4SjmM6s8E=
=w/+Z
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--EeQfGwPcQSOJBaQU--

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

- Next message: Marek Habersack: "Re: Why khttpd is a bad idea"
- Previous message: Stephen.Rothwell@canb.auug.org.au: "Re: [PATCH] New APM patch for testing"
- In reply to: Philip Blundell: "Re: Why khttpd is a bad idea (was a pointless argument about"