Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 05:37:40 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 05:37:31 -0500 Received: from alfik.ms.mff.cuni.cz ([195.113.19.71]:35594 "EHLO alfik.ms.mff.cuni.cz") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 05:37:15 -0500 Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2001 15:35:23 +0000 From: Pavel Machek To: Quinn Harris Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: File copy system call proposal Message-ID: <20011209153522.A138@toy.ucw.cz> In-Reply-To: <1007782956.355.2.camel@quinn.rcn.nmt.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <1007782956.355.2.camel@quinn.rcn.nmt.edu>; from quinn@nmt.edu on Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 08:42:36PM -0700 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi! > I would like to propose implementing a file copy system call. > I expect the initial reaction to such a proposal would be "feature > bloat" but I believe some substantial benefits can be seen possibly > making it worthwhile, primarily the following: > > Copy on write: You want cowlink() syscall, not copy() syscall. If they are on different partitions, let userspace do the job. > Will many other users benefit from these features? Will implementing > them (especially copy on write) cause an excessive addition to the code > of the kernel? Hmm, I have almost 20 different copies of kernel on my systems.... Yep it would save me a *lot* of space. Pavel -- Philips Velo 1: 1"x4"x8", 300gram, 60, 12MB, 40bogomips, linux, mutt, details at http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/velo/index.html. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/