From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun Apr 11 16: 9:41 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU (soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.43.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEA20163B8 for ; Sun, 11 Apr 1999 15:43:40 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jwm@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU) Received: from soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU (8.8.8/) via ESMTP id OAA22352 for ; Sun, 11 Apr 1999 14:16:45 -0700 (PDT) env-from (jwm@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU) Message-Id: <199904112116.OAA22352@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: read() and pread() syscalls Reply-To: jwm@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 14:16:45 -0700 From: John Milford Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Should read() be turned into a library function now that we have pread(), and read() is a proper subset of pread()? I am not sure if this is a POSIX compliance issue, but I've been digging around in this code recently, and it seems that there is a lot of overlap in the read system calls, and we might want to consider doing something similar to the approach taken with wait(). I could understand that this case is different so we may not want to be doing conversion of read() or readv() into a hypothetical preadv(), but I can see no issue with converting read()'s into pread()'s. I am willing to make this change and submit diffs, if it is something that makes sense to folks on the list. --John To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message