On Mon, 2008-03-31 at 10:30 +0100, Darren J Moffat wrote: > I find the function name a bit strange. So strange in fact it made me > look at the mmap(2) man page to check that it wasn't taking a char* > rather than an int for the file since I was sure it took and fd. Since > mmap(2) already takes an fd. > > The mmap(2) versus mmapfd(2) makes me think of fopen(3C) versus fdopen(3C). > > As for a better name it looks to me more like mmapv(2), eg like read(2) > versus readv(2).
A good name for this syscall has been elusive :) George has always wanted to call it "mapme(2)" but that seemed a bit odd. I agree that mmapfd(2) doesn't seem like it differentiates itself from mmap(2) enough. mmapv(2) does seem to follow readv(2) more closely so maybe that will be a better name. I'm open for other suggestions as well. Thanks, Mike > > -- > Darren J Moffat
