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

Johannes Sixt <[email protected]> writes:

> 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.

That is why I added the "it is also OK to declare" in the above.