On Aug 19, 2013, at 6:04 PM, Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org> 

> I hate your patch for other reasons, though:
>> The problem for read() is addressed in a similar way by introducing
>> a wrapper function in compat that always reads less than 2GB.
> Why do you do that? We already _have_ wrapper functions for read(),
> namely xread().  Exactly because you basically have to, in order to
> handle signals on interruptible filesystems (which aren't POSIX
> either, but at least sanely so) or from other random sources. And to
> handle the "you can't do reads that big" issue.
> So why isn't the patch much more straightforward? 

The first version was more straightforward [1].  But reviewers suggested
that the compat wrappers would be the right way to do it and showed me
that it has been done like this before [2].

I haven't submitted anything in a while, so I tried to be a kind person
and followed the suggestions.  I started to hate the patch a bit (maybe less
than you), but I wasn't brave enough to reject the suggestions.  This is
why the patch became what it is.

I'm happy to rework it again towards your suggestion.  I would also remove
the compat wrapper for write().  But I got a bit tired.  I'd appreciate if
I received more indication whether a version without compat wrappers would
be accepted.


[1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/232455
[2] 6c642a8 compate/clipped-write.c: large write(2) fails on Mac OS X/XNU--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to