Re: [PATCH 0/5] Reintroduce writev(3p)

Am 05.08.26 um 20:40 schrieb Junio C Hamano:
> I think it is OK to explicitly document that any writev(2) emulation
> is allowed to be non-atomic, and it is also OK to declare that using
> writev(2) in this application to allow competing writes to the same
> destination is a bug.

These are fine.

But I'm not worried about current uses of writev, I'm worried about
future uses: "Look, we already use writev elsewhere. Let's use it here,
too, where we can take adavantage of the atomicity of the write." It's
too easy to miss a note about non-atomic emulations when the function
name advertises more than can be guaranteed. For this reason, I strongly
suggest to use a different name.

-- Hannes