Am 17.04.2014 13:52, schrieb Jeff Layton: > 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? Sounds good. metze -- 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
