# Re: preadv2/pwritev2 rename

- From: Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) \<hidden\>
- Date: 2014-10-21 06:42:41 
- List: linux-api
- Page: https://ratatoskr.run/linux-api/2014/10/13328976
- Thread: https://ratatoskr.run/linux-api/2014/10/13328976/t.md

```text
Hello Milosz,

On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 11:52 PM, Milosz Tanski [ref] wrote:
> Christoph and/or Jeff,
>
> I updated the patch for 3.18-rc1 and I'm going to resend it as non-RFC
> as I didn't get comments last time.
>
> I only have one stupid question... I'm going to rename the calls to
> preadv6 and pwritev6 (so it's more like the other syscalls: dup3,
> accept4, eventfd2) but I'm not sure if i should call it preadv5 or
> pwritev6 since the offset argument is split into two different
> arguments (upper and lower part).

It's points like this that show exactly why naming system calls after
the number of their arguments is a very bad idea[1]. Please don't do
it. pwritev2() and preadv2() are not pretty either, but are marginally
better. pwritev_fl() and preadv_fl() (or simialr) might also be okay,
I guess.

> Also, In our application we were able to get about 20%-30% reduction
> in response time when using this before queuing in a IO thread pool on
> the read path. It's a pretty nice win in the real world.

Cheers,

Michael

http://blog.man7.org/2014/02/system-call-naming-and-numbering.html
```