Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Date | Thu, 30 Jan 2003 08:34:11 +0000 | From | Christoph Hellwig <> | Subject | Re: [RFC] Change sendfile header |
| |
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 10:03:04PM -0500, Bill Davidsen wrote: > I suggest that the header holding the prototype for sendfile should not be > in unistd.h because: > > 1 - sendfile is not in SuS, an is extremely non-standard > 2 - there is a sendfile in BSD and it's totally different > 3 - there is no man page for sendfile in Solaris, but there is a > definition in one of the libraries which is not Linux compatible > 4 - just putting the "not portable" warning in the man page to counteract > the impression given by the <unistd.h> is not enough, programmers > usually only read the man page to get the args right. > > Since Linux sendfile is totally applicable only to Linux, it would seem > that a better name for the header file, like linux/sendfile.h, would be > better. This has the advantage of not breaking executables, and requiring > use of a header file which makes it much harder to overlook the > portability issue.
You're rant is totally inappropinquate because:
1 - this is a glibc issue, applications should not include kernel headers 2 - there is no sendfile declaration in glibc's <unistd.h> 3 - there _is_ a <sys/sendfile.h> for sendfile(64) in glibc 4 - solaris _does_ have a linux-compatible sendfile now
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |