On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 09:09:27 -0700 Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 04:23:54PM +0200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote: > > > > There's at least two problems to solve here: > > > > 1) "File private locks" is _meaningless_ as a term. Elsewhere > > (http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.network.samba.internals/76414/focus=1685376), > > It's indeed not a very good choice, but the new name is even worse. > Just call them non-broken locks? :) Or not give them a name an just > append a 2 to the fcntls? :) > I think we'll need to give them a name, if only to make it possible to document this stuff. I'm in Jeremy's camp on this one. I don't really care what that name *is*. I just need to know what it is so I can finish up the docs and make any changes to the interface that are necessary. > > 2) The new API constants (F_SETLKP, F_SETLKPW, F_GETLKP) have names > > that are visually very close to the traditional POSIX lock names > > (F_SETLK, F_SETLKW, F_GETLK). That's an accident waiting to happen > > when someone mistypes in code and/or misses such a misttyping > > when reading code. That really must be fixed. > > I don't think so. They also should have a name very similar because > they have the same semantics with a major bug fixed. In fact I can't > think of anyone who would actually want the old behavior. > On this point, I agree with Michael. It would be easy to mix up the names when scanning by eye, so I think there is some value in making these more visually distinct. I rather like the idea of changing F_SETLKP to F_*_SETLK. The question is what to put in place of the wildcard there, and that sort of hinges on the name... -- 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
