Return-Path: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:50909 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751257Ab3EUTuX (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 May 2013 15:50:23 -0400 Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 12:50:20 -0700 From: Zach Brown To: Eric Wong Cc: "Martin K. Petersen" , Trond Myklebust , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC v0 1/4] vfs: add copy_range syscall and vfs entry point Message-ID: <20130521195020.GC14767@lenny.home.zabbo.net> References: <1368566126-17610-1-git-send-email-zab@redhat.com> <1368566126-17610-2-git-send-email-zab@redhat.com> <20130515194405.GA28720@dcvr.yhbt.net> <20130515200307.GD318@lenny.home.zabbo.net> <20130521194719.GA2957@dcvr.yhbt.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20130521194719.GA2957@dcvr.yhbt.net> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 07:47:19PM +0000, Eric Wong wrote: > Zach Brown wrote: > > On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 07:44:05PM +0000, Eric Wong wrote: > > > Why introduce a new syscall instead of extending sys_splice? > > > > Personally, I think it's ugly to have different operations use the same > > syscall just because their arguments match. > > Fair enough. I think adding a (currently unused) flags parameter would > make sense for future-proofing. Yeah, that seems reasonble. - z