Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755640AbaDPWm1 (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Apr 2014 18:42:27 -0400 Received: from mo4-p05-ob.smtp.rzone.de ([81.169.146.180]:15069 "EHLO mo4-p05-ob.smtp.rzone.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751239AbaDPWmZ (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Apr 2014 18:42:25 -0400 X-RZG-AUTH: :IWkQb0WIdvqIIwNfJfyiKBgoQwjwJ7eL6yL6M6h8JCY7ENneaJ7jDRa2 X-RZG-CLASS-ID: mo05 Message-ID: <534F0745.70705@samba.org> Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 00:42:13 +0200 From: "Stefan (metze) Metzmacher" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: mtk.manpages@gmail.com, Jeff Layton CC: libc-alpha , Michael Kerrisk-manpages , "Carlos O'Donell" , samba-technical@lists.samba.org, lkml , Jeremy Allison , "linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" , Ganesha NFS List Subject: Re: should we change the name/macros of file-private locks? References: <20140416145746.66b7441c@tlielax.poochiereds.net> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.2 OpenPGP: id=0E53083F 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 Am 16.04.2014 22:00, schrieb Michael Kerrisk (man-pages): > [CC += Jeremy Allison] > > On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 8:57 PM, Jeff Layton wrote: >> 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. > > So, to add my perspective: The existing byte-range locking system has > persisted (despite egregious faults) for well over two decades. One > supposes that Jeff's new improved version might be around > at least as long. With that in mind, and before setting in stone (and > pushing into POSIX) a model of thinking that thousands of programmers > will live with for a long time, it's worth thinking about names. > >> 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). > > The names I have suggested are: > > file-associated locks > > or > > file-handle locks > > or (using POSIX terminology) > > file-description locks I'd use file-handle, file-description or at least something that's not associated to the "file" itself. file-handle-associated or file-description-associated would also work. > but that last might be a bit confusing to people who are not > standards-aware. (The POSIX standard defines the thing that a "file > descriptor" refers to as a "file description"; other people often call > that thing a "file handle" or an "open file table entry" or a "struct > file". The POSIX term is precise and unambiguous, but, unfortunately, > the term is not common outside the standard and is also easily > mistaken for "file descriptor".) > >> 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 With file-description-associated this could be F_FDA_* metze -- 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/