On Mon, 2024-02-05 at 13:10 +0100, Christian Brauner wrote: > > 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. Thanks! I haven't done a rename (yet). I was just trying to feel out whether it was worthwhile. At this point, I'm thinking I'll just leave them as-is., but let me know if anyone has opinions to the contrary. -- Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>
