[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140421160927.GA19653@infradead.org>
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2014 09:09:27 -0700
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@...il.com>
Cc: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>, Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
samba-technical@...ts.samba.org,
Ganesha NFS List <nfs-ganesha-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
Carlos O'Donell <carlos@...hat.com>,
libc-alpha <libc-alpha@...rceware.org>,
"Stefan (metze) Metzmacher" <metze@...ba.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] locks: rename file-private locks to file-description
locks
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 04:23:54PM +0200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
>
> There's at least two problems to solve here:
>
> 1) "File private locks" is _meaningless_ as a term. Elsewhere
> (http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.network.samba.internals/76414/focus=1685376),
It's indeed not a very good choice, but the new name is even worse.
Just call them non-broken locks? :) Or not give them a name an just
append a 2 to the fcntls? :)
> 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 don't think so. They also should have a name very similar because
they have the same semantics with a major bug fixed. In fact I can't
think of anyone who would actually want the old behavior.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists