Hello Milosz, On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 11:52 PM, Milosz Tanski <milosz@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Christoph and/or Jeff, > > I updated the patch for 3.18-rc1 and I'm going to resend it as non-RFC > as I didn't get comments last time. > > I only have one stupid question... I'm going to rename the calls to > preadv6 and pwritev6 (so it's more like the other syscalls: dup3, > accept4, eventfd2) but I'm not sure if i should call it preadv5 or > pwritev6 since the offset argument is split into two different > arguments (upper and lower part). It's points like this that show exactly why naming system calls after the number of their arguments is a very bad idea[1]. Please don't do it. pwritev2() and preadv2() are not pretty either, but are marginally better. pwritev_fl() and preadv_fl() (or simialr) might also be okay, I guess. > Also, In our application we were able to get about 20%-30% reduction > in response time when using this before queuing in a IO thread pool on > the read path. It's a pretty nice win in the real world. Cheers, Michael http://blog.man7.org/2014/02/system-call-naming-and-numbering.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
