On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 00:40:20 -0700 Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 10:04:11AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > mm... I don't think we should be adding placeholders to the kernel API > > to support code which hasn't been written, tested, reviewed, merged, > > etc. It's possible none of this will ever happen and we end up with a > > syscall nobody needs or uses. Plus it's always possible that during > > this development we decide the pwrite2() interface needs alteration but > > it's too late. > > > > What would be the downside of deferring pwrite2() until it's all > > implemented? > > It _is_ implemented. I just decided to submit it separately as Miklos > already has to deal with enough bikeshedding for his feature that I > don't want to put the burden of dealing with the BS for the one I wrote > on him. afacit the only difference between this pwritev2() and the existing pwritev() is that pwritev2() interprets pos==-1 as "current position", which duplicates writev()? Unless I've missed something, there's no point in merging this pwritev2() and it would be better to separate this syscall out into a pwritev2() patchset which can be considered and merged separately. For the reasons described above. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
