> Another thought too: "locks_" as a prefix is awfully generic. Might it be > better to rename these new functions with a "filelock_" prefix instead? > That would better distinguish to the casual reader that this is dealing > with a file_lock object. I'm happy to respin the set if that's the > consensus. If it's just a rename then just point me to a branch I can pull. I don't think it's worth resending just because you effectively did some variant of s/lock_*/filelock_*/g In any case, folded this one.
