Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756015AbaDPS6L (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Apr 2014 14:58:11 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:15676 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753810AbaDPS6H (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Apr 2014 14:58:07 -0400 Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 14:57:46 -0400 From: Jeff Layton To: libc-alpha , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: "Carlos O'Donell" , Michael Kerrisk , Michael Kerrisk-manpages , samba-technical@lists.samba.org, nfs-ganesha-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: should we change the name/macros of file-private locks? Message-ID: <20140416145746.66b7441c@tlielax.poochiereds.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Sorry to spam so many lists, but I think this needs widespread distribution and consensus. File-private locks have been merged into Linux for v3.15, and *now* people are commenting that the name and macro definitions for the new file-private locks suck. ...and I can't even disagree. They do suck. 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. Michael Kerrisk suggested several names but I think the only one that doesn't have other issues is "file-associated locks", which can be distinguished against "process-associated" locks (aka classic POSIX locks). At the same time, he suggested that we rename the command macros since the 'P' suffix would no longer be relevant. He suggested something like this: F_FA_GETLK F_FA_SETLK F_FA_SETLKW That would also make them more visually distinguishable from the classic F_GETLK/F_SETLK/F_SETLKW commands. I like that change in particular, as the original macros names would be easy to typo. I think we'd also need to rename how these are reported in /proc/locks. Currently they have a type label of "FLPVT". I'd suggest that we change that to "FASSOC". For v3.15, this is the only part we'd absolutely have to change before it ships. The rest I can fix up in v3.16. Does this sound like a reasonable set of changes to make? Does anyone else have a better set of names they can suggest? Speak now, or forever hold your peace! -- Jeff Layton -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/