> No, I think he means just the opposite - that having a "copy(2)" syscall
> would greatly _help_ SMB in that the copy could be done entirely at the
> server side, rather than having to pull _all_ of the data to the client
> and then sending it back again.
>
> When I was working on another network storage system (formerly called
> Lustre, don't know what it is called now) we had a "copy" primitive in
> the VFS interface, and there were lots of useful things you could do
> with it.
>
> Consider the _very_ common case (that nobody has mentioned yet) where you
> are editing a large file. When you write to the file, the editor copies
> the file to a backup, then immediately truncates the original file and
> writes the new data there. What would be _far_ preferrable is to
> just
Are you sure? I think editor just _moves_ original to backup.
Pavel
--
"I do not steal MS software. It is not worth it."
-- Pavel Kankovsky
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/