Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 15 Mar 2016 21:34:03 -0700 | Subject | Re: [WTF] utterly tasteless ABI in hfi1 (around ->write()/->write_iter()) | From | Linus Torvalds <> |
| |
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
| |