> 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=16 > 8 > > 5376), > > 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? :) The folder name I've been archiving e-mails on this subject in is called "good locks"... I'd also be happy with "non-broken locks"... I could also be happy with private locks (since in addition to resolving broken POSIX behavior, they will ALSO allow user space servers to keep separate sets of locks for each client lock owner - if I remember, the addition of that capability prompted the private name). :-) > > 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. I'm nervous about such close names, but it's easy enough to use grep or cscope to check a code base for typos in this case. Frank -- 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
