From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ams@gnu.org (Alfred M. Szmidt) Subject: Re: [RFC][glibc PATCH] fcntl-linux.h: add new definitions and manual updates for open file description locks Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 15:00:06 -0400 Message-ID: References: <1398253172-9221-1-git-send-email-jlayton@redhat.com> <20140423112843.77889d16@tlielax.poochiereds.net> Reply-To: ams@gnu.org Cc: libc-alpha@sourceware.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, tytso@mit.edu, dalias@libc.org, mtk.manpages@gmail.com, samba-technical@lists.samba.org, nfs-ganesha-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, carlos@redhat.com, metze@samba.org, hch@infradead.org, bharrosh@panasas.com To: Jeff Layton Return-path: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: libc-alpha-owner@sourceware.org In-reply-to: <20140423112843.77889d16@tlielax.poochiereds.net> (message from Jeff Layton on Wed, 23 Apr 2014 11:28:43 -0400) List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org > Likewise. You infact write that it does get the lock information > later in the document wrt. F_OFD_GETLK. Sorry, I disagree here...GETLK is really a misnomer, IMO. TESTLK would have been a better name. GETLK are used is to "get the first lock". It's a way to test whether a particular lock can be applied, and to return information about a conflicting lock if it can't. If, for instance there is no conflicting lock, then you don't "get" any lock information back (l_type just gets reset to F_UNLCK). While I kinda see your point, it isn't what GETLK does; it really does get you information about the first lock -- you're not testing anything. It is also the terminology used in the POSIX standard.