On Tue, Mar 28, 2023, 8:53 AM Alexey Dokuchaev <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 01:07:41AM +0100, Jessica Clarke wrote: > > On 28 Mar 2023, at 00:45, Alan Somers wrote: > > > On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 4:39???PM Konstantin Belousov wrote: > > >> commit 61194e9852e641d1533cd04a5679d6042ff975d3 > > >> > > >> Add kqueue1() syscall > > >> > > >> It takes the flags argument. Immediate use is to provide the > > >> KQUEUE_CLOEXEC flag for kqueue(2). > > >> > > >> Differential revision: https://reviews.freebsd.org/D39271 > > > > > > We already have abort2(2), dup2(2), pipe2(2), and thr_kill2(2) that > > > are similar to other syscalls but with a flags argument. > > > Additionally, Linux has a renameat(2). But I'm not aware of any > > > syscalls named xxx1. Should we call this new one kqueue2 to follow > > > the existing convention? > > > > This was discussed on the linked review. > > I'm with Alan here, all needed knownledge (results of discussions) > should be part of the commit log, making commit itself sufficiently > understandable and judgeable. > But this is the existing convention.. and has been for decades since like wait4 or earlier. At best it is borderline information... Warner >
