On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 at 12:44, Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> So what's the API that provides the semantics of _copying_?
It's called "read()" and "write()".
Seriously.
The *ONLY* reason for splice() existing is for zero-copy. If you don't
want zero-copy (aka "copy by reference"), don't use splice.
Stop arguing against it. If you don't want zero-copy, you use read()
and write(). It really is that simple.
And no, we don't start some kind of crazy "versioned zero-copy with
COW". That's a fundamental mistake. It's a mistake that has been done
- several times - and made perhaps most famous by Hurd, that made that
a big thing.
And yes, this has been documented *forever*. It may not have been
documented on the first line, because IT WAS SO OBVIOUS. The whole
reason splice() is fast is because it avoids the actual copy, and does
a copy-by-reference.
That's still a copy. But a copy-by-reference is a special thing. If
you don't know what copy-by-reference is, or don't want it, don't use
splice().
I don't know how many different ways I can say the same thing.
IF YOU DON'T WANT ZERO-COPY, DON'T USE SPLICE.
IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN COPY-BY-VALUE AND
COPY-BY-REFERENCE, DON'T USE SPLICE.
IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE *POINT* OF SPLICE, DON'T USE SPLICE.
It's kind of a bit like pointers in C: if you don't understand
pointers but use them anyway, you're going to have a hard time. That's
not the fault of the pointers. Pointers are very very powerful. But if
you are used to languages that only do copy-by-value, you are going to
think they are bad things.
Linus
