> On Tue, 9 Jan 2001, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>
>> So i do believe that the networking
>> code is properly designed in this respect, and this concept goes to the
>> highest level of the networking code.
> Absolutely. This is why I have no conceptual problems with the networking
> layer changes, and why I am in violent disagreement with people who think
> the networking layer should have used the (much inferior, in my opinion)
> kiobuf/kiovec approach.
At least I (who has started this threads) haven't said htey should use iobufs
internally. I said: use iovecs in the interface, because this interface
is a little more general and allows to integrate into other parts (namely Ben's
aio work nicely).
Also the tuple argument you gave earlier isn't right in this specific case:
when doing sendfile from pagecache to an fs, you have a bunch of pages,
an offset in the first and a length that makes the data end before last
page's end.
> For people who worry about code re-use and argue for kiobuf/kiovec on
> those grounds, I can only say that the code re-use should go the other
> way. It should be "the bad code should re-use code from the good code". It
> should NOT be "the new code should re-use code from the old code".
It's not relly about reusing, but about compatiblity with other interfaces...
Christoph
-- Whip me. Beat me. Make me maintain AIX. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/