Messages in this thread | | | From | (Linus Torvalds) | Subject | Re: Preparations for ZD's upcoming Apache/Linux benchmark | Date | 10 Jun 1999 00:36:36 GMT |
| |
In article <Pine.LNX.4.02A.9906090013380.3840-100000@phobos.illtel.denver.co.us>, Alex Belits <abelits@phobos.illtel.denver.co.us> wrote: >> >> Sure, it's not really a new socket, but there isn't any way user space can >> know, so a standard apache or any other server would just never have seen >> the original requests on that socket. We may have to "fake" a header or >> similar on it, but at least it doesn't sound conecptually all that hard. > > What header? Userspace only needs to call accept() and get a file >descriptor -- it will never know the difference after that.
I don't know enough about the spec to even know whether there is any persistent "state" across the operations. If there is not, then no header is necessary, obviously. I thought of the header as a way of possibly initializing any persistent state issues so that the user mode could know about the fact that we've used the socket.
Linus
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |