From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Layton Subject: Re: [PATCH] locks: rename file-private locks to file-description locks Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2014 15:16:29 -0400 Message-ID: <20140421151629.009cdd66@ipyr.poochiereds.net> References: <1398087935-14001-1-git-send-email-jlayton@redhat.com> <20140421140246.GB26358@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <535529FA.8070709@gmail.com> <20140421161004.GC26358@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20140421124508.4f2c9ca7@tlielax.poochiereds.net> <5355610A.6090606@gmail.com> <20140421143238.668c818d@tlielax.poochiereds.net> <20140421184829.GE26358@brightrain.aerifal.cx> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, samba-technical@lists.samba.org, Ganesha NFS List , "Carlos O'Donell" , libc-alpha , "Stefan (metze) Metzmacher" , Christoph Hellwig To: Rich Felker Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:65285 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753335AbaDUTRL (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Apr 2014 15:17:11 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20140421184829.GE26358@brightrain.aerifal.cx> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 14:48:29 -0400 Rich Felker wrote: > On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 02:32:38PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > > > > Fair enough. Assuming we kept "file-description locks" as a name, what > > > > would you propose as new macro names? > > > > > > I assume you meant, "assume we kept the term 'file-private locks'..." > > > In that case, at least make the constants something like > > > > > > F_FP_SETLK > > > F_FP_SETLKW > > > F_FP_GETLK > > > > > > so that they are not confused with the traditional constants. > > > > > > Cheer, > > > > > > > Actually no, I was asking how Rich would name the constants if we use > > the name "file-description locks" (as per the patch I posted this > > morning), since his objection was the use if *_FD_* names. > > > > I would assume that if we stick with "file-private locks" as the name, > > then we'll still change the constants to a form like *_FP_*. > > > > Also, to be clear...Frank is correct that the name "file-private" came > > from allowing the locks to be "private" to a particular open file > > description. Though I agree that it's a crappy name at best... > > As I mentioned in a reply to Michael just now, I think FP is bad > because the whole problem is that legacy fcntl locks are associated > with the underlying file rather than the open file description (open > instance). So open-private (OP) might be a better choice than > file-private. > > Rich Is "open-private" or "open-file-private" really any better than "file-private" ? They're all names that only a mother could love and I'm not sure any of them are really any clearer than the others. Also: Legacy fcntl locks are associated with the _process_ and not the underlying file, per-se. -- Jeff Layton