From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Oct 31 22:56:13 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E923D1065674; Mon, 31 Oct 2011 22:56:13 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wollman@hergotha.csail.mit.edu) Received: from hergotha.csail.mit.edu (wollman-1-pt.tunnel.tserv4.nyc4.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f06:ccb::2]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 846338FC1C; Mon, 31 Oct 2011 22:56:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from hergotha.csail.mit.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hergotha.csail.mit.edu (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p9VMuCoZ075728; Mon, 31 Oct 2011 18:56:12 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from wollman@hergotha.csail.mit.edu) Received: (from wollman@localhost) by hergotha.csail.mit.edu (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id p9VMuCG2075727; Mon, 31 Oct 2011 18:56:12 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from wollman) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 18:56:12 -0400 (EDT) From: Garrett Wollman Message-Id: <201110312256.p9VMuCG2075727@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> To: dougb@freebsd.org X-Newsgroups: mit.lcs.mail.freebsd-arch In-Reply-To: <4EAF1F39.1090008@FreeBSD.org> References: <201110281426.00013.jhb@freebsd.org> <201110311024.07580.jhb@freebsd.org> <20111031190359.GP2258@hoeg.nl> <201110311717.53476.jhb@freebsd.org> <20111031221627.GR2258@hoeg.nl> Organization: none X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (hergotha.csail.mit.edu [127.0.0.1]); Mon, 31 Oct 2011 18:56:12 -0400 (EDT) X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on hergotha.csail.mit.edu Cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] fadvise(2) system call X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 22:56:14 -0000 In article <4EAF1F39.1090008@FreeBSD.org>, dougb@freebsd.org writes: >I don't see anyone in this thread saying that we should go back and >change things that we already have. But if we're going to implement a >new thing, giving it the standard name (however ugly, and I agree that >it's ugly) is almost certainly the right way to go. The existence of the posix_* names indicates that the pre-existing implementations, on which POSIX based its standard, had some conflict over the function's semantics or signature; the use of the reserved posix_ namespace allows pre-existing implementations to support pre-existing applications without conflicting with the requirements of the standard. The committee generally doesn't do this when all implementations agree on the name (or when it's just making stuff up, as it sometimes does). If I were asked what color this bikeshed should be, I would suggest that the most standard-compliant thing to do would be to name the public interface according to the standard, but I would not object to a set of macros which provided unprefixed names iff __BSD_VISIBLE. That way, use of the official POSIX interface does not depend on namespace pollution. (But this discussion should probably be taking place on standards@ rather than arch@.) -GAWollman -- Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft wollman@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993