apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Justin Erenkrantz <jus...@erenkrantz.com>
Subject Re: do we still want sendfile enabled with our default conf files?
Date Fri, 18 Mar 2005 17:00:26 GMT
--On Friday, March 18, 2005 11:27 AM -0500 Ryan Bloom <rbloom@gmail.com> wrote:

> That's fine.  Pay attention to what I suggested.  Default to
> non-native sendfile, until we have know that it works.  If you have an
> OS that you know for a fact does sendfile correctly, then that would
> be a case where we know that it works.

I tend to prefer Jeff's solution of having APR return APR_ENOTIMPL when the 
APR_SENDFILE_AUTODETECT flag is set and we'd fail.  I'm ambivalent if we 
decide to have apr_socket_sendfile() internally call emulate_sendfile because 
apr_socket_sendfile() has always been an optional function (APR_HAS_SENDFILE). 
If we go this route of having it mask the choice, then apr_socket_sendfile() 
should always be present and we can clean up the code in httpd accordingly.

I also think that we likely already know the cases when sendfile is going to 
succeed on a particular platform.  I haven't heard any claims that sendfile() 
fails on Linux when using only IPv4 and ext{23}.  So, yes, I think we can do 
better than a straight APR_ENOTIMPL - but if people don't want to write the 
checks, then we'll just live with writev() on that platform.  -- justin

Mime
View raw message