Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 23:04:27 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 23:04:16 -0500 Received: from h24-77-26-115.gv.shawcable.net ([24.77.26.115]:55432 "EHLO phalynx") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 23:04:15 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: Ryan Cumming To: Rik van Riel Subject: Re: Scheduler ( was: Just a second ) ... Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 20:04:10 -0800 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.3.2] In-Reply-To: In-Reply-To: Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@transmeta.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Message-Id: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On December 19, 2001 19:50, Rik van Riel wrote: > On Tue, 18 Dec 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > The thing is, I'm personally very suspicious of the "features for that > > exclusive 0.1%" mentality. > > Then why do we have sendfile(), or that idiotic sys_readahead() ? Damn straights sendfile(2) had an oppertunity to be a real extention of the Unix philosophy. If it was called something like "copy" (to match "read" and "write"), and worked on all fds (even if it didn't do zerocopy, it should still just work), it'd fit in a lot more nicely than even BSD sockets. Alas, as it is, it's more of a wart than an extention. Now, sys_readahead() is pretty much the stupidest thing I've ever heard. If we had a copy(2) syscall, we could do the same thing by: copy(sourcefile, /dev/null, count). I don't think sys_readahead() even qualifies as a wart. -Ryan - 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/