Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755175AbYKMWCp (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Nov 2008 17:02:45 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753197AbYKMWCb (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Nov 2008 17:02:31 -0500 Received: from rv-out-0506.google.com ([209.85.198.234]:6747 "EHLO rv-out-0506.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752009AbYKMWC3 (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Nov 2008 17:02:29 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :content-disposition:references; b=IRfxOYpeEBemdDN5vvYsl2d6E3dgk3B0ChXZGXumPuUUMvCzgdXnxKdastuaPHd144 Wp5/dqCmYGl7UiK2YlHrunUwzy0qGlEjNP1/usMMU+1ZRz3uGnl8T7Fju2fALxVKybD0 KKaU5Py7EeUHujWxWehFNXB9pPbbGDV6BV5yU= Message-ID: Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 17:02:28 -0500 From: "Michael Kerrisk" Reply-To: mtk.manpages@gmail.com To: "Andrew Morton" Subject: Re: [PATCH] reintroduce accept4 Cc: "Subrata Modak" , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, "Ulrich Drepper" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org, linux-man@vger.kernel.org, "Davide Libenzi" , netdev , "Roland McGrath" , "Oleg Nesterov" , "Christoph Hellwig" , "David Miller" , "Alan Cox" , "Jakub Jelinek" In-Reply-To: <517f3f820811131351l1305b2d2u43ab4e0601d97f93@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <200810261641.m9QGfotr024285@hs20-bc2-1.build.redhat.com> <517f3f820811131351l1305b2d2u43ab4e0601d97f93@mail.gmail.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1299 Lines: 31 Hit the send button a little early on my last mail. Just to complete one piece: > My only argument is with the name of the new sysytem call. ... Each of these new system calls (accept4(), dup3(), evenfd2(), signalfd4(), inotify_init1(), epoll_create1(), pipe2()) has a name that's based on the number of arguments it has. This follows a convention that was used in a few traditional Unix system calls, e.g., wait3(), wait4(), dup2(). However, it's probably a mistake since: a) The glibc interfaces can have different numbers of arguments from the system call b) In the future, we might use the new bits in the flags argument to signal the presence of additional arguments for the call, in which case the number in the name no longer matches the number of arguments in the call signature. In the end, names like acceptx(), dupx(), ... or acceptfl(), duplf(), ... or somesuch would probably have been better. But given that we already added the other system calls, it doesn't seem worth bothering to change things for accept4(). Cheers, Michael -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/