Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751200AbaDQUJZ (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Apr 2014 16:09:25 -0400 Received: from mail-pb0-f43.google.com ([209.85.160.43]:59981 "EHLO mail-pb0-f43.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750970AbaDQUJP (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Apr 2014 16:09:15 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Reply-To: mtk.manpages@gmail.com In-Reply-To: <534FC342.8010008@gmail.com> References: <20140416145746.66b7441c@tlielax.poochiereds.net> <534F0745.70705@samba.org> <20140417075254.28e470ed@tlielax.poochiereds.net> <534FC342.8010008@gmail.com> From: "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 22:08:54 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: should we change the name/macros of file-private locks? To: Jeff Layton , "Stefan (metze) Metzmacher" Cc: Michael Kerrisk , libc-alpha , Michael Kerrisk-manpages , "Carlos O'Donell" , samba-technical@lists.samba.org, lkml , Jeremy Allison , "linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" , Ganesha NFS List Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >> In the docs we could take pains to point out that these are >> file-_description_ locks and not file-_descriptor_ locks, and outline >> why that is so (which is something I'm trying to make crystal clear in >> the docs anyway). >> >> Does anyone object to that? > > Well, I'd be silly to object, but maybe we should still allow a day > for further comment? Jeff, One further point. I know the intent is to get this scheme into POSIX. Have any conversations happened about this so far on the POSIX/Austin lists? If yes, it might be worth also linking those folks into the naming discussion.. Cheers, Michael -- 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/