Re: [PATCH v7 0/5] vfs: Non-blockling buffered fs read (page cache only)

[Andrew Morton]

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-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/