From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from casper.infradead.org (casper.infradead.org [90.155.50.34]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 91F723D3B3; Mon, 1 Jun 2026 15:36:38 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=90.155.50.34 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1780328199; cv=none; b=L7SbXpMB5KsSTnAJ9OnZlon733oZbZTBhfZ0Va+L4SAluhKd5uxqHFMO49dp+Qhh53hnpOzDUCLDytQ29d4NkB2bR1qzTh2mSU8WqmfjgkW2nsrItkWuodTw7+UfTHCFwXd0gQKQn7xplKiteTj7n7ptPoJcdBMCQSLE+P7RZoQ= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1780328199; c=relaxed/simple; bh=H47CwTJuyLbcelpSQG2zpvNI6BVNtzW7wETPeulhYLQ=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=UxgJ/+Try8axjj3+0aOyZurriuyCHN6uPayANdHVLBBETxGeHhYyd/0m+zXRu+QH/RHhYN4+eGlAeCuicnMp/bcwN68+ACYrQn8kYlkatR9D4vR2fQjkVu4wZgqzkw/jSx6Up6kbnm2CxJ7iIprryUzv1kaxQ72YrSJaoBpb5rc= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=infradead.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=infradead.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.b=BHrNpzeG; arc=none smtp.client-ip=90.155.50.34 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=infradead.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=infradead.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.b="BHrNpzeG" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=infradead.org; s=casper.20170209; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type:MIME-Version:References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date: Sender:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description; bh=uh/rSo04bA41IYEYhuCEmiPxe1UvV/t0jdyDzVX2YG0=; b=BHrNpzeGZqdKJuNp96JO89ttPJ bdb+A5SD0YvtoDoKOX0CC3qchpCkTZ2sI3UM5+vS3aurB3SMNU/xuzXKT6ui9yT8laW8VxXYNd+Rv C08f5zIYEOjkeCCyZpXVZEUiPSHLKkaZKuGArp5Bh/d8uXdfJqpl2kKNB4wSH1ss24z4TyrYzHia2 lHUWhh64JLazy8RinYX0kKD/d0zf5/Z10mlNfPhR1nXy3hJf5z2uOV3OjaIOQK2M2+6ALpsXj0gS3 Zf1W7XuzTtQBA6MZZwthFzEcFOL6eR9aVlXkTl6XWFmGHUjDcfewUeG3hXPoPtR48i/QVNEPOt0Dw 9NMgQ7Ww==; Received: from willy by casper.infradead.org with local (Exim 4.99.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1wU4gu-00000000KjY-0W0S; Mon, 01 Jun 2026 15:36:36 +0000 Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2026 16:36:36 +0100 From: Matthew Wilcox To: Andy Lutomirski Cc: Askar Safin , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Christian Brauner , Alexander Viro , Jan Kara , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds , Jens Axboe , Christoph Hellwig , David Howells , Andrew Morton , David Hildenbrand , Pedro Falcato , Miklos Szeredi , patches@lists.linux.dev Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] vmsplice: make vmsplice a trivial wrapper for preadv2/pwritev2 Message-ID: References: <20260531010107.1953702-1-safinaskar@gmail.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-api@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: On Sun, May 31, 2026 at 08:11:34PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > On Sat, May 30, 2026 at 6:03 PM Askar Safin wrote: > > > > See recent discussion here: > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260516182126.530498-1-pfalcato@suse.de/T/#u > > > > For all these reasons I propose to make vmsplice a simple wrapper for > > preadv2/pwritev2. > > > > I have no comment on the code or the history. But I'm 100% in favor > of the solution. vmsplice is a crappy API, and would be incredibly > complex to get the implementation right, and it should be removed. > But it has users, and the approach of just mapping them straight to > pread/pwrite makes perfect sense. I agree with Andy. I think it was appropriate to send this series, since (as far as I can tell) it's a completely different approach from the others taken. I'm not really qualified to judge whether the implementation is good (it's a bit outside my competency as a reviewer), but the described approach is more convincing to me than the other approaches. Can we review this series properly?