Am 21.04.2014 21:55, schrieb Jeff Layton: > 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? Works fine for me... metze -- 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
