From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "H. Peter Anvin" Subject: Re: preadv2/pwritev2 rename Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2014 13:07:39 -0700 Message-ID: <5446BD0B.6040009@zytor.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-api-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: mtk.manpages-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org, Milosz Tanski Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Jeff Moyer , Linux API List-Id: linux-api@vger.kernel.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 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