This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH] locks: rename file-private locks to file-description locks
- From: Jeff Layton <jlayton at redhat dot com>
- To: Christoph Hellwig <hch at infradead dot org>
- Cc: "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk dot manpages at gmail dot com>, Rich Felker <dalias at libc dot org>, linux-fsdevel at vger dot kernel dot org, linux-kernel at vger dot kernel dot org, samba-technical at lists dot samba dot org, Ganesha NFS List <nfs-ganesha-devel at lists dot sourceforge dot net>, "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at redhat dot com>, libc-alpha <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>, "Stefan (metze) Metzmacher" <metze at samba dot org>
- Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2014 12:42:10 -0400
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] locks: rename file-private locks to file-description locks
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1398087935-14001-1-git-send-email-jlayton at redhat dot com> <20140421140246 dot GB26358 at brightrain dot aerifal dot cx> <535529FA dot 8070709 at gmail dot com> <20140421160927 dot GA19653 at infradead dot org>
On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 09:09:27 -0700
Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> wrote:
> 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? :)
>
I think we'll need to give them a name, if only to make it possible to
document this stuff.
I'm in Jeremy's camp on this one. I don't really care what that name
*is*. I just need to know what it is so I can finish up the docs and
make any changes to the interface that are necessary.
> > 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.
>
On this point, I agree with Michael. It would be easy to mix up the
names when scanning by eye, so I think there is some value in making
these more visually distinct. I rather like the idea of changing
F_SETLKP to F_*_SETLK. The question is what to put in place of the
wildcard there, and that sort of hinges on the name...
--
Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>