On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 18:40:16 -0400 Milosz Tanski <milosz@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. I was over in the mm session and probably wouldn't have objected either because because you can't sit down, think, carefully inspect code and evaluate arguments in such a context. I've explained my reasoning. If there's something wrong with that reasoning or if there are contradictory reasons which I'm not aware of then let's hear them! -- 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
