From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753399AbaDUSnK (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Apr 2014 14:43:10 -0400 Received: from mail-ee0-f41.google.com ([74.125.83.41]:43942 "EHLO mail-ee0-f41.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752779AbaDUSnH (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Apr 2014 14:43:07 -0400 Message-ID: <535566B6.6070700@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2014 20:43:02 +0200 From: "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andy Lutomirski , Jeff Layton , Rich Felker CC: mtk.manpages@gmail.com, libc-alpha , "Carlos O'Donell" , samba-technical@lists.samba.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Stefan (metze) Metzmacher" , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Ganesha NFS List Subject: Re: [PATCH] locks: rename file-private locks to file-description locks 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> <53555CF0.8030405@mit.edu> In-Reply-To: <53555CF0.8030405@mit.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 04/21/2014 08:01 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > On 04/21/2014 09:45 AM, Jeff Layton wrote: >> On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 12:10:04 -0400 >> Rich Felker wrote: >>> I'm well aware of that. The problem is that the proposed API is using >>> the two-letter abbreviation FD, which ALWAYS means file descriptor and >>> NEVER means file description (in existing usage) to mean file >>> description. That's what's wrong. >>> >> >> Fair enough. Assuming we kept "file-description locks" as a name, what >> would you propose as new macro names? > > F_OFD_...? F_OPENFILE_...? > > If you said "file description" to me, I'd assume you made a typo. If, > on the other hand, you said "open file" or "open file description" or, > ugh, "struct file", I think I'd understand. "Open file description locks" is a mouthful, but, personally, I could live with it. "struct file" is not a term that belongs in user-space. "open file" is too ambiguous, IMO. -- Michael Kerrisk Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/ Linux/UNIX System Programming Training: http://man7.org/training/