> > This sounds simple, but what about persistent connections? (I think it can
> > be done even then, though)
>
> "persistent" as in connections that are re-used for multiple requests?
Yes, and there are some things that make it more complicated, such as
"send multiple requests, then get all answers in sequence" behavior
that is supposed to be supported by HTTP/1.0 (this model has no
high-level flow control, see my previous message).
> Yes, I think it should work even for a socket that has already been used
> for another transfer: the kernel can do one (or more) static content
> transfers over the same socket, and then when it gets a request it cannot
> handle it just passes the socket to user space as if it was new.
>
> 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.
-- Alex---------------------------------------------------------------------- Excellent.. now give users the option to cut your hair you hippie! -- Anonymous Coward
- 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/