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

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 30 Mar 2015 11:54:14 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc:	Milosz Tanski <milosz@...in.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-aio@...ck.org" <linux-aio@...ck.org>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
	Volker Lendecke <Volker.Lendecke@...net.de>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>,
	"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
	Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 0/5] vfs: Non-blockling buffered fs read (page cache
 only)

On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 00:40:20 -0700 Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> 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.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/