# Re: preadv2/pwritev2 rename

- From: H. Peter Anvin \<hidden\>
- Date: 2014-10-21 20:07:39 
- List: linux-api
- Page: https://ratatoskr.run/linux-api/2014/10/13328979
- Thread: https://ratatoskr.run/linux-api/2014/10/13328979/t.md

```text
On 10/20/2014 11:42 PM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
> 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.
> 

The splitting of the argument is a calling convention thing (and a
rather stupid one at that... we shouldn't do these kinds of things
manually.)  As such, it is not visible to the user and should not be
counted.

	-hpa
```