Re: [PATCH] Bindings for ‘sendfile’

[Noah Lavine <noah.b.lavine@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1526 bytes --]

Hello,

Yes, you're completely right - making it work on all platforms is much
better than what I had proposed. I'm glad you're doing this.

Thanks,
Noah


On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 5:15 AM, Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> wrote:

> Hi Noah,
>
> Noah Lavine <noah.b.lavine@gmail.com> skribis:
>
> > I've thought for a while that if I had time (which I know I won't) I
> would
> > make a module called (linux) with bindings for non-POSIX Linux kernel
> > features. What do you think of this idea? If so, what do you think of
> > putting sendfile there and expanding it with other functions as we need
> > them?
>
> I’ve thought about it, but ended up with making sendfile work whether or
> not the syscall is available (just like glibc does, after all).
>
> So for this particular case, I’d rather keep it in the global name
> space.  There’s also the untold argument that even if sendfile(2) is
> unavailable, the loop written in C is going to be faster than the
> equivalent bytecode.
>
> FWIW, I plan to integrate the Linux bindings I wrote for “boot-to-Guile”
> eventually:
>
>
> http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/guix.git/tree/gnu/packages/patches/guile-linux-syscalls.patch
>
> These are not defined in POSIX, but apart from the Linux module
> syscalls, they (that is, mount(2) and the networking ioctls) happen to
> be supported by glibc on all 3 kernels, and also by other libcs.  Thus,
> I’d rather keep them in the global name space as well.
>
> WDYT?
>
> Thanks,
> Ludo’.
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2146 bytes --]