On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 2:54 PM, Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. > At the LSF/MM session, the agreement form the active participants (James Bottomley, Ted Tso, Christoph, and I forget the last guy's name) that we should ship both syscalls in the first patch. Personally I don't care, but you're the only voice against it. -- Milosz Tanski CTO 16 East 34th Street, 15th floor New York, NY 10016 p: 646-253-9055 e: milosz@xxxxxxxxx -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
