On Thu, 17 Apr 2014 00:42:13 +0200 "Stefan (metze) Metzmacher" <metze@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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 <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 > > 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. > Yeah, I understand your point. I'm not keen on using "file-handle" as file handles have a completely different meaning in the context of something like NFS. "file-description-associated" is rather a mouthful. You Germans might go for that sort of thing, but it feels awkward to us knuckle-draggers that primarily speak English. Maybe we should just go with one of Michael's earlier suggestions -- "file-description locks" and change the macros to F_FD_*. 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? > > 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 -- Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> -- 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
