On 04/20/2018 08:19 AM, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Apr 2018 18:01:32 -0700
> Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
>> We can keep mmap() nice interface, granted we can add one hook like in
>> following patch.
>>
>> David, do you think such patch would be acceptable by lkml and mm/fs
>> maintainers ?
On Thu, 19 Apr 2018 18:01:32 -0700
Eric Dumazet wrote:
> We can keep mmap() nice interface, granted we can add one hook like in
> following patch.
>
> David, do you think such patch would be acceptable by lkml and mm/fs
> maintainers ?
>
> Alternative would be implementing an ioctl() or getso
From: Eric Dumazet
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2018 18:01:32 -0700
> David, do you think such patch would be acceptable by lkml and mm/fs
> maintainers ?
You will have to ask them directly I think :)
On 04/19/2018 04:15 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> I am not sure we can keep mmap() API, since we probably need to first lock
> the socket,
> then grab vm semaphore.
>
We can keep mmap() nice interface, granted we can add one hook like in
following patch.
David, do you think such patch would be
On 04/16/2018 10:33 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Some networks can make sure TCP payload can exactly fit 4KB pages,
> with well chosen MSS/MTU and architectures.
>
> Implement mmap() system call so that applications can avoid
> copying data without complex splice() games.
>
> Note that a successfu
Some networks can make sure TCP payload can exactly fit 4KB pages,
with well chosen MSS/MTU and architectures.
Implement mmap() system call so that applications can avoid
copying data without complex splice() games.
Note that a successful mmap( X bytes) on TCP socket is consuming
bytes, as if rec
