On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 02:32:38PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > > > Fair enough. Assuming we kept "file-description locks" as a name, what > > > would you propose as new macro names? > > > > I assume you meant, "assume we kept the term 'file-private locks'..." > > In that case, at least make the constants something like > > > > F_FP_SETLK > > F_FP_SETLKW > > F_FP_GETLK > > > > so that they are not confused with the traditional constants. > > > > Cheer, > > > > Actually no, I was asking how Rich would name the constants if we use > the name "file-description locks" (as per the patch I posted this > morning), since his objection was the use if *_FD_* names. > > I would assume that if we stick with "file-private locks" as the name, > then we'll still change the constants to a form like *_FP_*. > > Also, to be clear...Frank is correct that the name "file-private" came > from allowing the locks to be "private" to a particular open file > description. Though I agree that it's a crappy name at best... As I mentioned in a reply to Michael just now, I think FP is bad because the whole problem is that legacy fcntl locks are associated with the underlying file rather than the open file description (open instance). So open-private (OP) might be a better choice than file-private. Rich -- 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
