This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Re: [Nfs-ganesha-devel] should we change the name/macros of file-private locks?
- From: Jim Lieb <jlieb at panasas dot com>
- To: <nfs-ganesha-devel at lists dot sourceforge dot net>, Jeremy Allison <jra at samba dot org>
- Cc: "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk dot manpages at gmail dot com>, libc-alpha <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>, Jeff Layton <jlayton at redhat dot com>, Michael Kerrisk-manpages <mtk dot manpages at googlemail dot com>, "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at redhat dot com>, <samba-technical at lists dot samba dot org>, lkml <linux-kernel at vger dot kernel dot org>, Jeremy Allison <jra at google dot com>, "linux-fsdevel at vger dot kernel dot org" <linux-fsdevel at vger dot kernel dot org>
- Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 17:31:11 -0700
- Subject: Re: Re: [Nfs-ganesha-devel] should we change the name/macros of file-private locks?
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20140416145746 dot 66b7441c at tlielax dot poochiereds dot net> <CAKgNAkgqZDcT0jda8XS+4HrJzXjzwehqciHbkNuAVY3fNkH4zQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <20140416201633 dot GQ22791 at samba2>
On Wednesday, April 16, 2014 13:16:33 Jeremy Allison wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 10:00:46PM +0200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
> > [CC += Jeremy Allison]
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 8:57 PM, Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > Sorry to spam so many lists, but I think this needs widespread
> > > distribution and consensus.
> > >
> > > File-private locks have been merged into Linux for v3.15, and *now*
> > > people are commenting that the name and macro definitions for the new
> > > file-private locks suck.
> > >
> > > ...and I can't even disagree. They do suck.
> > >
> > > We're going to have to live with these for a long time, so it's
> > > important that we be happy with the names before we're stuck with them.
> >
> > So, to add my perspective: The existing byte-range locking system has
> > persisted (despite egregious faults) for well over two decades. One
> > supposes that Jeff's new improved version might be around
> > at least as long. With that in mind, and before setting in stone (and
> > pushing into POSIX) a model of thinking that thousands of programmers
> > will live with for a long time, it's worth thinking about names.
> >
> > > Michael Kerrisk suggested several names but I think the only one that
> > > doesn't have other issues is "file-associated locks", which can be
> > > distinguished against "process-associated" locks (aka classic POSIX
> > > locks).
> >
> > The names I have suggested are:
> > file-associated locks
> >
> > or
> >
> > file-handle locks
> >
> > or (using POSIX terminology)
> >
> > file-description locks
>
> Thanks for the CC: Michael, but to be honest
> I don't really care what the name is, I just
> want the functionality. I can change our build
> system to cope with detecting it under any name
> you guys choose :-).
>
> Cheers,
>
> Jeremy.
I and the rest of the nfs-ganesha community are with Jeremy and samba wrt
names. We just want locks that work, i.e. Useful Locks ;)
Jim
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -- Learn Graph Databases - Download FREE O'Reilly Book
> "Graph Databases" is the definitive new guide to graph databases and their
> applications. Written by three acclaimed leaders in the field,
> this first edition is now available. Download your free book today!
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/NeoTech
> _______________________________________________
> Nfs-ganesha-devel mailing list
> Nfs-ganesha-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs-ganesha-devel
--
Jim Lieb
Linux Systems Engineer
Panasas Inc.
"If ease of use was the only requirement, we would all be riding tricycles"
- Douglas Engelbart 1925â2013