[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110312173217.GA24981@kroah.com>
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2011 09:32:17 -0800
From: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
To: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@...il.com>
Cc: Indan Zupancic <indan@....nu>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Sage Weil <sage@...dream.net>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Aneesh Kumar K. V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
mtk.manpages@...il.com, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, hch@....de,
l@...per.es
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] introduce sys_syncfs to sync a single file system
On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 08:10:01PM -0600, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Indan Zupancic wrote:
>
> > I'm not pushing for any official convention, just what seems good taste.
>
> In cases like this, conventions (consistency and best practices) are
> very important.
>
> > Less code added, less bloat. Architecture independent, no need to update
> > all system call tables everywhere (all archs, libc versions and strace).
> > Two files changed, instead of 7 (which only hooks up x86).
>
> Thanks for explaining. Those do seem like good reasons to use a ioctl
> instead of a new syscall.
No, make it a syscall, it's more obvious and will be documented much
better.
thanks,
greg k-h
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists