On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 9:17 PM, Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Take a look at drivers/staging/rdma/hfi1/file_ops.c in -next and
> compare hfi1_write_iter() with hfi1_file_write(). Folks, this ABI is too
> ugly to live, let alone to be allowed breeding.
>
> It's also brittle as hell - trivial massage around fs/read_write.c
> and fs/aio.c is quite capable of breaking that shit. Arguably, IOCB_CMD_PWRITE
> and IOCB_CMD_PWRITEV both triggering your writev() semantics is an example of
> just such breakage. Sigh...
We could just decide that if a file descriptor has both ->write and
->write_iter entities, we always pick ->write_iter in the vfs layer.
That way it's always consistent.
Simple ordering change in __vfs_write()..
We can switch is back later, but make sure it hits a release or two.
Or at least a few rc's, to flush out any problems.
Anybody who thinks that they can have different semantics for write()
and writev() is just completely broken.
Linus
--
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
