[interfacekit] Re: Portlink implementation
- From: "Ingo Weinhold" <bonefish@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: interfacekit@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 16:30:19 +0200 CEST
On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 10:01:43 +0200 "Marc Flerackers" <
mflerackers@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[...]
> This is what we want to prevent, _BSession_ is extremely fast because
> it
> doesn't need allocations/deallocations and only does one copy to put
> the
> data into the buffer. We need to be able to send what we have in the
> buffer,
> not copy it again. Besides there's a limit to port capacity, you
> can't just
> send a message of any size.
I played a bit with it and it seems the R5 limit is at about 2MB. A
little less and it not always the same, which makes me suspect, that
some kind of global buffer or limit is used for all ports. Our
implementation has a 65KB limit per message, which is certainly not
adequate.
BTW, R5's write_port() doesn't even report an error, when the message
is too large. It simply doesn't write the message and nevertheless
returns B_OK.
CU, Ingo
- References:
- [interfacekit] Re: Portlink implementation
- From: Marc Flerackers
Other related posts:
- » [interfacekit] Portlink implementation
- » [interfacekit] Re: Portlink implementation
- » [interfacekit] Re: Portlink implementation
- » [interfacekit] Re: Portlink implementation
- » [interfacekit] Re: Portlink implementation
- » [interfacekit] Re: Portlink implementation
- » [interfacekit] Re: Portlink implementation
- » [interfacekit] Re: Portlink implementation
- » [interfacekit] Re: Portlink implementation
- » [interfacekit] Re: Portlink implementation
- » [interfacekit] Re: Portlink implementation
- » [interfacekit] Re: Portlink implementation
- » [interfacekit] Re: Portlink implementation
- » [interfacekit] Re: Portlink implementation
- [interfacekit] Re: Portlink implementation
- From: Marc Flerackers