Linux-kernel mailing list archive 1999-23,: Re: generalizing khttpd

# Re: generalizing khttpd

Jordan Mendelson (jordy@wserv.com)
Thu, 10 Jun 1999 21:03:04 -0400

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Christoph Lameter: "Re: generalizing khttpd"
- Previous message: David B. Rees: "Re: Do not use stock RedHat 6.0 kernels with SMBFS!"
- Maybe in reply to: Christoph Lameter: "generalizing khttpd"
- Next in thread: H. Peter Anvin: "Re: generalizing khttpd"

Christoph Lameter wrote:
>
> You are talking about a function call taking a filehandle and a socket
> which would send the file contents directly onto the socket right?
>
> something like send_file(filehandle,sockethandle)

If that's the only thing khttpd gains from being in the kernel then yes. Is the
sendfile syscall which exists right now somehow inferior to khttpd in terms of
raw speed and efficiency of outputing a file to a socket?

I was under the impression that khttpd had other reasons for going kernel mode
such as faster ability to get timestamps and what not on the file itself.

Jordan

    --
    Jordan Mendelson     : http://jordy.wserv.com
    Web Services, Inc.   : http://www.wserv.com

    -
    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: Christoph Lameter: "Re: generalizing khttpd"
- Previous message: David B. Rees: "Re: Do not use stock RedHat 6.0 kernels with SMBFS!"
- Maybe in reply to: Christoph Lameter: "generalizing khttpd"
- Next in thread: H. Peter Anvin: "Re: generalizing khttpd"