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

Rich Felker dalias at libc.org
Mon Apr 21 12:48:29 MDT 2014

On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 02:32:38PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > > 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
> > 
> > 
> > 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...

As I mentioned in a reply to Michael just now, I think FP is bad
because the whole problem is that legacy fcntl locks are associated
with the underlying file rather than the open file description (open
instance). So open-private (OP) might be a better choice than


More information about the samba-technical mailing list