[PATCH] locks: rename file-private locks to file-description locks
jlayton at redhat.com
Mon Apr 21 10:42:10 MDT 2014
On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 09:09:27 -0700
Christoph Hellwig <hch at 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 at redhat.com>
More information about the samba-technical