> A client-side copy will be slower, but I guess it does have the > advantage that the application can track progress to some degree, and > abort it fairly quickly without leaving the file in a totally undefined > state--and both might be useful if the copy's not a simple constant-time > operation. I suppose, but can't the app achieve a nice middle ground by copying the file in smaller syscalls? Avoid bulk data motion back to the client, but still get notification every, I dunno, few hundred meg? > So maybe a way to pass your NONBLOCKy flag to the server would be > useful? Maybe, but maybe it also just won't be used in practice. I'm to the point where I'd rather we get the stupidest possible thing out there so that we can learm from actual use of the interface. - z -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
