Return-Path: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:18598 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753865Ab3EOUDK (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 May 2013 16:03:10 -0400 Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 13:03:07 -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: <20130515200307.GD318@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> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20130515194405.GA28720@dcvr.yhbt.net> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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. But that preference aside, sure, if the consensus is that we'd rather use the splice() entry point then I can duck tape the pieces together to make it work. > If the user doesn't need a out offset, then sendfile() should also be > able to transparently utilize COPY/CLONE_RANGE, too. Perhaps, yeah. - z