Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 13:48:48 -0700 From: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> To: Ed Schouten <ed@80386.nl> Cc: arch@freebsd.org, Jilles Tjoelker <jilles@stack.nl> Subject: Re: [PATCH] fadvise(2) system call Message-ID: <4EAF09B0.8050603@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20111031190359.GP2258@hoeg.nl> References: <201110281426.00013.jhb@freebsd.org> <20111029214057.GB90408@stack.nl> <201110311024.07580.jhb@freebsd.org> <20111031190359.GP2258@hoeg.nl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 10/31/2011 12:03, Ed Schouten wrote: > Hi John, > > * John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org>, 20111031 15:24: >> Existing applications use the name and I find it ugly. (I also wish we >> had a plain fallocate() instead of just posix_fallocate().) However, if >> other folks prefer not having the wrapper I could update it to use the >> posix_* name. > > I agree with Jilles. It's easier to introduce namespace pollution than > it is to get rid of it afterwards. If the function is called > posix_fadvise(), people should just use that. > > People are constantly complaining about `Linuxisms' when they want to > port software to FreeBSD. The word `BSDism' should remain an euphemism. > ;-) +1 to both points. :) -- Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much. -- OK Go Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS. Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4EAF09B0.8050603>