This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
RE: [Nfs-ganesha-devel] [PATCH] locks: rename file-private locks to file-description locks
- From: "Frank Filz" <ffilzlnx at mindspring dot com>
- To: "'Christoph Hellwig'" <hch at infradead dot org>, "'Michael Kerrisk \(man-pages\)'" <mtk dot manpages at gmail dot com>
- Cc: "'Rich Felker'" <dalias at libc dot org>, "'libc-alpha'" <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>, "'Jeff Layton'" <jlayton at redhat dot com>, "'Carlos O'Donell'" <carlos at redhat dot com>, <samba-technical at lists dot samba dot org>, <linux-kernel at vger dot kernel dot org>, "'Stefan \(metze\) Metzmacher'" <metze at samba dot org>, <linux-fsdevel at vger dot kernel dot org>, "'Ganesha NFS List'" <nfs-ganesha-devel at lists dot sourceforge dot net>
- Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2014 10:03:33 -0700
- Subject: RE: [Nfs-ganesha-devel] [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, 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=16
> 8
> > 5376),
>
> 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? :)
The folder name I've been archiving e-mails on this subject in is called
"good locks"...
I'd also be happy with "non-broken locks"...
I could also be happy with private locks (since in addition to resolving
broken POSIX behavior, they will ALSO allow user space servers to keep
separate sets of locks for each client lock owner - if I remember, the
addition of that capability prompted the private name).
:-)
> > 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.
I'm nervous about such close names, but it's easy enough to use grep or
cscope to check a code base for typos in this case.
Frank