Re: git: 61194e9852e6 - main - Add kqueue1() syscall

From: Warner Losh <imp_at_bsdimp.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2023 07:16:03 UTC 
On Tue, Mar 28, 2023, 8:53 AM Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@freebsd.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 01:07:41AM +0100, Jessica Clarke wrote:
> > On 28 Mar 2023, at 00:45, Alan Somers wrote:
> > > On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 4:39???PM Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> > >> commit 61194e9852e641d1533cd04a5679d6042ff975d3
> > >>
> > >>  Add kqueue1() syscall
> > >>
> > >>  It takes the flags argument.  Immediate use is to provide the
> > >>  KQUEUE_CLOEXEC flag for kqueue(2).
> > >>
> > >>  Differential revision:  https://reviews.freebsd.org/D39271
> > >
> > > We already have abort2(2), dup2(2), pipe2(2), and thr_kill2(2) that
> > > are similar to other syscalls but with a flags argument.
> > > Additionally, Linux has a renameat(2).  But I'm not aware of any
> > > syscalls named xxx1.  Should we call this new one kqueue2 to follow
> > > the existing convention?
> >
> > This was discussed on the linked review.
>
> I'm with Alan here, all needed knownledge (results of discussions)
> should be part of the commit log, making commit itself sufficiently
> understandable and judgeable.
>

But this is the existing convention..  and has been for decades since like
wait4 or earlier.  At best it is borderline information...

Warner

>