From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH] locks: rename file-private locks to file-description locks Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2014 09:09:27 -0700 Message-ID: <20140421160927.GA19653@infradead.org> References: <1398087935-14001-1-git-send-email-jlayton@redhat.com> <20140421140246.GB26358@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <535529FA.8070709@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Rich Felker , Jeff Layton , 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" To: "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" Return-path: Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.9]:33710 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751214AbaDUQKI (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Apr 2014 12:10:08 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <535529FA.8070709@gmail.com> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 04:23:54PM +0200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote: > > There's at least two problems to solve here: > > 1) "File private locks" is _meaningless_ as a term. Elsewhere > (http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.network.samba.internals/76414/focus=1685376), It's indeed not a very good choice, but the new name is even worse. Just call them non-broken locks? :) Or not give them a name an just append a 2 to the fcntls? :) > 2) The new API constants (F_SETLKP, F_SETLKPW, F_GETLKP) have names > that are visually very close to the traditional POSIX lock names > (F_SETLK, F_SETLKW, F_GETLK). That's an accident waiting to happen > when someone mistypes in code and/or misses such a misttyping > when reading code. That really must be fixed. I don't think so. They also should have a name very similar because they have the same semantics with a major bug fixed. In fact I can't think of anyone who would actually want the old behavior.