Not logged in
Log in now
Create an account
Subscribe to LWN
LWN.net Weekly Edition for May 23, 2013
An "enum" for Python 3
An unexpected perf feature
LWN.net Weekly Edition for May 16, 2013
A look at the PyPy 2.0 release
Why not just have tee()'s non-consumption of input behavior simply be
specified by a new flag for splice(), rather than have a completely
tee() with your splice()?
Posted Apr 13, 2006 15:49 UTC (Thu) by axboe (subscriber, #904)
With the current tee, you can think of it as simply a pipe dupe with memcpy() like semantics.
Posted Apr 13, 2006 16:36 UTC (Thu) by RobSeace (subscriber, #4435)
Posted Apr 25, 2006 8:24 UTC (Tue) by hozelda (guest, #19341)
Or if we just had to have 2, then "function" and "ioctl" (that's my vote).
If 3: "function" "ioctl" and "read." In particular, read(WRITE, fd, ...) for opening a file, read (OPEN, ...) for duplicating a file descriptor, read (IOCTL, ...) for closing a network connection, function(READ, ...) for reserving memory, and function (CHMOD, ...) for shutting the system. Everything else should be doable with ioctl(..).
Cool! We should suggest this on the mailing lists!!!
[On a serious note, splice and tee may be related; for example, splice(WITH_TEE) might just increment counters beyond 1 and add ptrs to some linked list, etc. I don't really know. Maybe. But what really concerns me is your desire to do away with system calls.]
Copyright © 2013, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds