# Re: \[RFC -next 00/10\] Add ZC notifications to splice and sendfile - From: Pavel Begunkov \ - Date: 2025-03-21 20:50:51 - List: linux-api - Page: https://ratatoskr.run/linux-api/2025/03/307698 - Thread: https://ratatoskr.run/netdev/2025/03/307339/t.md ```text On 3/21/25 07:55, Stefan Metzmacher wrote: > Am 20.03.25 um 11:46 schrieb Pavel Begunkov: >> On 3/19/25 19:15, Stefan Metzmacher wrote: >>> Am 19.03.25 um 19:37 schrieb Jens Axboe: >>>> On 3/19/25 11:45 AM, Joe Damato wrote: >>>>> On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 11:20:50AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote: >> ... >>>> My argument would be the same as for other features - if you can do it >>>> simpler this other way, why not consider that? The end result would be >>>> the same, you can do fast sendfile() with sane buffer reuse. But the >>>> kernel side would be simpler, which is always a kernel main goal for >>>> those of us that have to maintain it. >>>> >>>> Just adding sendfile2() works in the sense that it's an easier drop in >>>> replacement for an app, though the error queue side does mean it needs >>>> to change anyway - it's not just replacing one syscall with another. And >>>> if we want to be lazy, sure that's fine. I just don't think it's the >>>> best way to do it when we literally have a mechanism that's designed for >>>> this and works with reuse already with normal send zc (and receive side >>>> too, in the next kernel). >>> >>> A few month (or even years) back, Pavel came up with an idea >>> to implement some kind of splice into a fixed buffer, if that >>> would be implemented I guess it would help me in Samba too. >>> My first usage was on the receive side (from the network). >> >> I did it as a testing ground for infra needed for ublk zerocopy, >> but if that's of interest I can resurrect the patches and see >> where it goes, especially since the aforementioned infra just got >> queued. > > Would be great! > > Have you posted the work in progress somewhere? Nope apart from a dirty hack I believe I posted back then. -- Pavel Begunkov ```