On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 11:00:31PM -0000, Steven Hartland wrote: > What's the expected behaviour for the sendfile changes as > sendfile is one of the problems we have here with the > double memory allocation required for it under ZFS compared > to UFS. Does this patch address that? No. The patch doesn't address that. It only adds support for sendfile(2), as it was commented out in the previous patchset. > Inspecting the patch the following segment looks odd:- > --- sys/cddl/contrib/opensolaris/uts/common/fs/zfs/zfs_vnops.c.orig > +++ sys/cddl/contrib/opensolaris/uts/common/fs/zfs/zfs_vnops.c > ... > while (n > 0) { > nbytes = MIN(n, zfs_read_chunk_size - > P2PHASE(uio->uio_loffset, zfs_read_chunk_size)); > > +#ifdef __FreeBSD__ > + if (uio->uio_segflg == UIO_NOCOPY) > + error = mappedread_sf(vp, nbytes, uio); > + else > +#endif /* __FreeBSD__ */ > if (vn_has_cached_data(vp)) > error = mappedread(vp, nbytes, uio); > else > > Is there an extra "else" in there which will break things or should > the __FreeBSD__ mappedread_sf block replace the standard mappedread > call or is the indentation just a bit weird? The code is correct. It is just hard to split 'else' and 'if' with a '#endif' and keep the indentation pretty. Depends on the conditions we use one of the three methods to read the data. -- Pawel Jakub Dawidek http://www.wheelsystems.com pjd_at_FreeBSD.org http://www.FreeBSD.org FreeBSD committer Am I Evil? Yes, I Am!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:10 UTC