From: <Mik...@et...> - 2003-11-11 09:39:11
|
> Thanks for you suggestion. > > Upon further experimentation it does appear that you are right. > > Originally I did not use writev, because I thought that it used normal write > to do the work. Now I realize that that would not make sense, because the > main point of writev is to avoid the overhead of multiple system calls to > write several buffers. It does use the write operation if the writev operation isn't implemented (which is currently the case for fuse) > Perhaps it could still be useful to somebody if they were doing something > esoteric, like using sendfile(2), or something, but writev works nicely for > me, so I withdraw my patch. I think a patch is still needed. I was thinking that the writev operation could be implemented in fuse_dev_operations, so it could handle the case where the header and the arg is in a different buffer. The hard part is doing this nicely, so that not much code is duplicated across write and writev. Miklos |