From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2026 20:29:44 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] Reintroduce writev(3p)
Message-ID: <xmqqa4r0payv.fsf@gitster.g>
In-Reply-To: <8ff3c3ea-2604-4d65-8a7d-6acd6218b7c2@kdbg.org>

Johannes Sixt <j6t@kdbg.org> writes:

> 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.

That is why I added the "it is also OK to declare" in the above.