On 04/21/2014 09:06 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 03:04:10PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
>> I think what you mean is that there is no need that we expose the name
>> "struct file". My point is that "struct file" is actually a much
>> _better_ name than "file description". Heck, "open file object" would
>> be better name than "file description".
>
> Open file description is what all current standards use. I'm pretty
> sure really old ones just used open file,
("open file description" was already in SUSv1 (1994))
> but struct file has never
> been used in an API description.
Exactly.
> Introducing it now entirely out of
> context is not helpful at all.
In principle, I agree, though it might be helpful for some
people to mention this term in a side-note in, say, open(2).
Cheers,
Michael
--
Michael Kerrisk
Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/
Linux/UNIX System Programming Training: http://man7.org/training/
--
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
