On 04/17/2014 01:52 PM, Jeff Layton wrote: > 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. Even as a knuckle-dragger in the German-speaking world it feels like a mouthful ;-). But, I think Stefan's preference is anyway for the shorter term(s), IIUC. > Maybe we should just go with one of Michael's earlier suggestions -- > "file-description locks" and change the macros to F_FD_*. >From my perspective, and the few comments so far, "file-handle lock" or "file-description lock" seems the way to go. I imagine some will not be so happy with the latter term (because unfamiliar and too similar to "file descriptor), but the open(2) man page has for quite a long time now (9+ years) has followed POSIX in using the term "open file description". > 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? Cheers, Michael >>> 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 > > -- Michael Kerrisk Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/ Linux/UNIX System Programming Training: http://man7.org/training/ -- 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
