lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Mar]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [WTF] utterly tasteless ABI in hfi1 (around ->write()/->write_iter())
From
On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 9:17 PM, Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
>
> Take a look at drivers/staging/rdma/hfi1/file_ops.c in -next and
> compare hfi1_write_iter() with hfi1_file_write(). Folks, this ABI is too
> ugly to live, let alone to be allowed breeding.
>
> It's also brittle as hell - trivial massage around fs/read_write.c
> and fs/aio.c is quite capable of breaking that shit. Arguably, IOCB_CMD_PWRITE
> and IOCB_CMD_PWRITEV both triggering your writev() semantics is an example of
> just such breakage. Sigh...

We could just decide that if a file descriptor has both ->write and
->write_iter entities, we always pick ->write_iter in the vfs layer.

That way it's always consistent.

Simple ordering change in __vfs_write()..

We can switch is back later, but make sure it hits a release or two.
Or at least a few rc's, to flush out any problems.

Anybody who thinks that they can have different semantics for write()
and writev() is just completely broken.

Linus

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-03-16 06:01    [W:0.076 / U:0.144 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site