From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jim Lieb Subject: Re: Re: [Nfs-ganesha-devel] should we change the name/macros of file-private locks? Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 17:31:11 -0700 Message-ID: <2369283.4ufWfMqZox@jlieb-e6410> References: <20140416145746.66b7441c@tlielax.poochiereds.net> <20140416201633.GQ22791@samba2> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" , libc-alpha , Jeff Layton , Michael Kerrisk-manpages , "Carlos O'Donell" , , lkml , Jeremy Allison , "linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" To: , Jeremy Allison Return-path: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: libc-alpha-owner@sourceware.org In-Reply-To: <20140416201633.GQ22791@samba2> List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Wednesday, April 16, 2014 13:16:33 Jeremy Allison wrote: > On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 10:00:46PM +0200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)= wrote: > > [CC +=3D Jeremy Allison] > >=20 > > On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 8:57 PM, Jeff Layton w= rote: > > > Sorry to spam so many lists, but I think this needs widespread > > > distribution and consensus. > > >=20 > > > File-private locks have been merged into Linux for v3.15, and *no= w* > > > people are commenting that the name and macro definitions for the= new > > > file-private locks suck. > > >=20 > > > ...and I can't even disagree. They do suck. > > >=20 > > > We're going to have to live with these for a long time, so it's > > > important that we be happy with the names before we're stuck with= them. > >=20 > > So, to add my perspective: The existing byte-range locking system h= as > > persisted (despite egregious faults) for well over two decades. One= > > supposes that Jeff's new improved version might be around > > at least as long. With that in mind, and before setting in stone (a= nd > > pushing into POSIX) a model of thinking that thousands of programme= rs > > will live with for a long time, it's worth thinking about names. > >=20 > > > Michael Kerrisk suggested several names but I think the only one = that > > > doesn't have other issues is "file-associated locks", which can b= e > > > distinguished against "process-associated" locks (aka classic POS= IX > > > locks). > >=20 > > The names I have suggested are: > > file-associated locks > >=20 > > or > >=20 > > file-handle locks > >=20 > > or (using POSIX terminology) > >=20 > > file-description locks >=20 > Thanks for the CC: Michael, but to be honest > I don't really care what the name is, I just > want the functionality. I can change our build > system to cope with detecting it under any name > you guys choose :-). >=20 > Cheers, >=20 > =09Jeremy. I and the rest of the nfs-ganesha community are with Jeremy and samba w= rt=20 names. We just want locks that work, i.e. Useful Locks ;) Jim >=20 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------= ------- > -- Learn Graph Databases - Download FREE O'Reilly Book > "Graph Databases" is the definitive new guide to graph databases and = their > applications. Written by three acclaimed leaders in the field, > this first edition is now available. Download your free book today! > http://p.sf.net/sfu/NeoTech > _______________________________________________ > Nfs-ganesha-devel mailing list > Nfs-ganesha-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs-ganesha-devel --=20 Jim Lieb Linux Systems Engineer Panasas Inc. "If ease of use was the only requirement, we would all be riding tricyc= les" - Douglas Engelbart 1925=E2=80=932013