On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 14:48:29 -0400 Rich Felker <dalias@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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 Is "open-private" or "open-file-private" really any better than "file-private" ? They're all names that only a mother could love and I'm not sure any of them are really any clearer than the others. Also: <pedantic> Legacy fcntl locks are associated with the _process_ and not the underlying file, per-se. </pedantic> -- 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
