On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 10:00:46PM +0200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote: > [CC += Jeremy Allison] > > On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 8:57 PM, Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> 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 Thanks for the CC: Michael, but to be honest I don't really care what the name is, I just want the functionality. I can change our build system to cope with detecting it under any name you guys choose :-). Cheers, Jeremy. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
