On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 11:46:34AM -0700, Michael Corcoran wrote: > 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. >
given that this system call interprets and maps different kinds of objects (and the psarc case says it could be extended to understand other object types as well) how about mmapobj(). ed
