From: Johannes Sixt <j6t@kdbg.org>
Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2026 20:00:51 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] Reintroduce writev(3p)
Message-ID: <8ff3c3ea-2604-4d65-8a7d-6acd6218b7c2@kdbg.org>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqpkzwpg1g.fsf@gitster.g>

Am 05.08.26 um 20:40 schrieb Junio C Hamano:
> I think it is OK to explicitly document that any writev(2) emulation
> is allowed to be non-atomic, and it is also OK to declare that using
> writev(2) in this application to allow competing writes to the same
> destination is a bug.

These are fine.

But I'm not worried about current uses of writev, I'm worried about
future uses: "Look, we already use writev elsewhere. Let's use it here,
too, where we can take adavantage of the atomicity of the write." It's
too easy to miss a note about non-atomic emulations when the function
name advertises more than can be guaranteed. For this reason, I strongly
suggest to use a different name.

-- Hannes