This is the mail archive of the
libc-ports@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the libc-ports project.
Re: [ARM,MIPS,M68K] Fix sync_file_range parameter names
- From: "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at systemhalted dot org>
- To: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: libc-ports at sourceware dot org
- Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 18:34:57 -0500
- Subject: Re: [ARM,MIPS,M68K] Fix sync_file_range parameter names
- References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0911181712220.10566@digraph.polyomino.org.uk>
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 12:14 PM, Joseph S. Myers
<joseph@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> This patch updates the ARM, MIPS and M68K bits/fcntl.h headers for a libc
> change to better names of parameters of the sync_file_range function.
> I've committed the ARM and MIPS changes; OK to commit the M68K changes?
>
> Other port maintainers may wish to update their own ports.
> ?/* Selective file content synch'ing. ?*/
> -extern int sync_file_range (int __fd, __off64_t __from, __off64_t __to,
> +extern int sync_file_range (int __fd, __off64_t __offset, __off64_t __count,
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?unsigned int __flags);
I think the word "count" should only be used if the objects are
non-byte sized, and in this case count is actually a number of bytes.
FWIW I think this should match the linux kernel man pages project
which uses "nbytes" instead of "count"
I know this is purely a cosmetic (and perhaps maintenance friendly)
change, but we might as well use the accepted convention?
Cheers,
Carlos.