Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 18:55:11 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 18:55:01 -0500 Received: from zero.tech9.net ([209.61.188.187]:25352 "EHLO zero.tech9.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 18:54:45 -0500 Subject: Re: tux officially in kernel? From: Robert Love To: J Sloan Cc: john slee , J Sloan , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <3C6C4942.4050305@lexus.com> In-Reply-To: <3C67F327.8010404@tmsusa.com> <20020213135841.GB4826@higherplane.net> <3C6C4942.4050305@lexus.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Evolution/1.0.2 Date: 14 Feb 2002 18:54:41 -0500 Message-Id: <1013730883.807.251.camel@phantasy> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2002-02-14 at 18:33, J Sloan wrote: > So, just out of curioisity, why is khttpd in > the kernel? If there were any web server > in the mainline kernel I'd think it'd be tux - Personally khttpd should be ripped from the kernel. It is a nice, uh, example. Or something. TUX touches enough code that it isn't a clear decision to merge, although it is certainly worth it. I, however, think we are rapidly approaching the point, if not there already, that with a zero-copy network driver userspace can perform as good as TUX with none of the downsides. That was part of Ingo's goal and a lot of the benefits - sendfile etc - are a result of TUX. Anyhow, if I recall correctly, X15 performed better than TUX. Robert Love - 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/