On Fri, 27 Mar 2015 01:18:22 -0700 Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 08:28:24PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > I still don't understand why pwritev() exists. We discussed this last > > time but it seems nothing has changed. I'm not seeing here an adequate > > description of why it exists nor a justification for its addition. > > pwritev2? I have patches to support per-I/O O_DSYNC with it, lots of > folks including Samba and SCSI targets want this because their protocols > support it. The patches were posted with earlier versions of Miklos > series. > > It's cleaner to add the two system calls in go when we plan using them > anyway and have symmetric infrastructure, and I did not hear any > disagreement with that on LSF. Did you skip this session? Put it in the changelogs. All of it. A conference discussion is no use to people who weren't there. > > And (again) we've discussed this before, but the patchset gets resent > > as if nothing had happened. > > We had long discussiosn about it both here and at LSF. We had everyone > agree and nod there, and only your repeated argument here, so maybe it's > not Miklos who is disonnected but you? I don't find conferences to be a good place to conduct code and design review. > Also that whole fincore argument is rather hypothetic - it's only been > pushed in to ugly to live multiplexers that also expose things like > pfns, while with preadv2 we have a trivial and easy to use API read to > merge, and various consumerms just waiting for it. fincore() doesn't have to be ugly. Please address the design issues I raised. How is pread2() useful to the class of applications which cannot proceed until all data is available? -- 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
