On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 21:39:12 +0200 "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 04/21/2014 08:46 PM, Rich Felker wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 08:32:44PM +0200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote: > >> On 04/21/2014 06:10 PM, Rich Felker wrote: > >>> I'm well aware of that. The problem is that the proposed API is using > >>> the two-letter abbreviation FD, which ALWAYS means file descriptor and > >>> NEVER means file description (in existing usage) to mean file > >>> description. That's what's wrong. > >> > >> So, can you *please* answer this question: what do you call (i.e., > >> what everyday technical language term do use for) the thing > >> that sits between a file descriptor and an i-node? > >> > >> (Please don't say 'struct file' -- that is not is an implementation > >> detail, and does not qualify as the kind of term that I could use > >> when documenting this feature in man pages.) > > > > "Open file description". > > Oh! I didn't realize we agreed :-). > > >> POSIX uses (or invented, I am not sure which) the term file description > >> for a good reason: it is unambiguous, and therefore precise. I do agree > >> that there's a risk of confusion between 'open file descriptor" and > >> 'and file description'--it's the same kind of risk as between English > >> terms such as 'arbitrator' and 'arbitration' (and any number of other > >> examples), and as language speakers we deal with this every day. > > > > There's not a problem when the full word is used. On the other hand, > > if you use "arb" as an abbreviation for "arbitration" in a context > > where it was already universally understood as meaning "arbitrator", > > that would be a big problem. > > > > Likewise the problem here isn't that "open file description" is a bad > > term. It's that using "FD" to mean "[open] file description" is > > utterly confusing, even moreso than just making up a new completely > > random word. > > Ohh -- I had thought you a problem not just with "FD" but also > "(open) file description". > > >>>> 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 agree, but I don't think making it worse is a solution. > >> > >> I don't agree that it's making it worse. The real problem here is > >> that people use no good unambiguous term for the thing between a file > >> descriptor and an inode. POSIX provides us with a solution that may > >> not seem perfect, but it is unambiguous, and I think it might feel > >> more comfortable if we used it often enough. > > > > I would like to see it used more too, and in particular, I think it > > belongs in the documentation for these new locking interfaces. But > > that still doesn't answer the question of what to call them (the > > macros) unless you want: > > > > F_OPEN_FILE_DESCRIPTION_GETLK > > F_OPEN_FILE_DESCRIPTION_SETLK > > F_OPEN_FILE_DESCRIPTION_SETLKW > > Or just 'F_OFD_*'? > > > Perhaps "OP" (for open-private, i.e. private to the particular open) > > would be a sensible choice; OTOH people are likely to misread it as > > OPeration. The general principle I have in mind though is that it > > might be nice to highlight the word "open" in "open file description" > > (Fair enough.) > > > since it (1) contrasts with file descriptor, despite file descriptors > > also dealing with open files, and (2) contrasts well with legacy fcntl > > locks, which are (this is the whole bug) associated with the > > underlying file and not the open file description. > > Makes sense to me. (We are in more agreement that I realized.) > > Cheers, > > Michael > > > So the motion is to call them "open file description locks" and change the macros to read *_OFD_*. Does anyone object? -- 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
