[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <53557B39.8080208@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2014 22:10:33 +0200
From: "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@...il.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, 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>
CC: mtk.manpages@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] locks: rename file-private locks to file-description
locks
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-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