[PATCH] locks: rename file-private locks to file-description locks

[Jeff Layton]

On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 20:18:50 +0200
"Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages at gmail.com> wrote:

> Jeff,
> On 04/21/2014 06:45 PM, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 12:10:04 -0400
> > Rich Felker <dalias at libc.org> wrote:
> > 
> >> On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 04:23:54PM +0200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
> >>> On 04/21/2014 04:02 PM, Rich Felker wrote:
> >>>> On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 09:45:35AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> [...]
> >>>    initial preference, and I also suggested "file-description locks"
> >>>    and noted the drawbacks of that term. I think it's insufficient
> >>>    to say "stick with the existing poor name"--if you have
> >>>    something better, then please propose it. (Note by the way
> >>>    that for nearly a decade now, the open(2) man page has followed
> >>>    POSIX in using the term "open file description. Full disclosure:
> >>>    of course, I'm responsible for that change in the man page.)
> >>
> >> I'm well aware of that. The problem is that the proposed API is using
> >> the two-letter abbreviation FD, which ALWAYS means file descriptor and
> >> NEVER means file description (in existing usage) to mean file
> >> description. That's what's wrong.
> >>
> > 
> > Fair enough. Assuming we kept "file-description locks" as a name, what
> > would you propose as new macro names?
> 
> I assume you meant, "assume we kept the term 'file-private locks'..."
> In that case, at least make the constants something like
> 
> F_FP_SETLK
> F_FP_SETLKW
> F_FP_GETLK
> 
> so that they are not confused with the traditional constants.
> 
> Cheer,
> 

Actually no, I was asking how Rich would name the constants if we use
the name "file-description locks" (as per the patch I posted this
morning), since his objection was the use if *_FD_* names.

I would assume that if we stick with "file-private locks" as the name,
then we'll still change the constants to a form like *_FP_*.

Also, to be clear...Frank is correct that the name "file-private" came
from allowing the locks to be "private" to a particular open file
description. Though I agree that it's a crappy name at best...

-- 
Jeff Layton <jlayton at redhat.com>