Re: preadv2/pwritev2 rename

["H. Peter Anvin" <hpa-YMNOUZJC4hwAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>]

On 10/20/2014 11:42 PM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
> Hello Milosz,
> 
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 11:52 PM, Milosz Tanski <milosz-B5zB6C1i6pkAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>> Christoph and/or Jeff,
>>
>> I updated the patch for 3.18-rc1 and I'm going to resend it as non-RFC
>> as I didn't get comments last time.
>>
>> I only have one stupid question... I'm going to rename the calls to
>> preadv6 and pwritev6 (so it's more like the other syscalls: dup3,
>> accept4, eventfd2) but I'm not sure if i should call it preadv5 or
>> pwritev6 since the offset argument is split into two different
>> arguments (upper and lower part).
> 
> It's points like this that show exactly why naming system calls after
> the number of their arguments is a very bad idea[1]. Please don't do
> it. pwritev2() and preadv2() are not pretty either, but are marginally
> better. pwritev_fl() and preadv_fl() (or simialr) might also be okay,
> I guess.
> 

The splitting of the argument is a calling convention thing (and a
rather stupid one at that... we shouldn't do these kinds of things
manually.)  As such, it is not visible to the user and should not be
counted.

	-hpa