From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 03:24:51 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 03:24:51 -0500 Received: from carisma.slowglass.com ([195.224.96.167]:270 "EHLO phoenix.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 03:24:50 -0500 Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 08:34:11 +0000 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Bill Davidsen Cc: Linux-Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [RFC] Change sendfile header Message-ID: <20030130083411.B22879@infradead.org> Mail-Followup-To: Christoph Hellwig , Bill Davidsen , Linux-Kernel Mailing List References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: ; from davidsen@tmr.com on Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 10:03:04PM -0500 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 10:03:04PM -0500, Bill Davidsen wrote: > I suggest that the header holding the prototype for sendfile should not be > in unistd.h because: > > 1 - sendfile is not in SuS, an is extremely non-standard > 2 - there is a sendfile in BSD and it's totally different > 3 - there is no man page for sendfile in Solaris, but there is a > definition in one of the libraries which is not Linux compatible > 4 - just putting the "not portable" warning in the man page to counteract > the impression given by the is not enough, programmers > usually only read the man page to get the args right. > > Since Linux sendfile is totally applicable only to Linux, it would seem > that a better name for the header file, like linux/sendfile.h, would be > better. This has the advantage of not breaking executables, and requiring > use of a header file which makes it much harder to overlook the > portability issue. You're rant is totally inappropinquate because: 1 - this is a glibc issue, applications should not include kernel headers 2 - there is no sendfile declaration in glibc's 3 - there _is_ a for sendfile(64) in glibc 4 - solaris _does_ have a linux-compatible sendfile now