should we change the name/macros of file-private locks?

[Jeremy Allison]

On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 10:00:46PM +0200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
> [CC += Jeremy Allison]
> 
> On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 8:57 PM, Jeff Layton <jlayton at redhat.com> wrote:
> > Sorry to spam so many lists, but I think this needs widespread
> > distribution and consensus.
> >
> > File-private locks have been merged into Linux for v3.15, and *now*
> > people are commenting that the name and macro definitions for the new
> > file-private locks suck.
> >
> > ...and I can't even disagree. They do suck.
> >
> > We're going to have to live with these for a long time, so it's
> > important that we be happy with the names before we're stuck with them.
> 
> So, to add my perspective: The existing byte-range locking system has
> persisted (despite egregious faults) for well over two decades. One
> supposes that Jeff's new improved version might be around
> at least as long. With that in mind, and before setting in stone (and
> pushing into POSIX) a model of thinking that thousands of programmers
> will live with for a long time, it's worth thinking about names.
> 
> > Michael Kerrisk suggested several names but I think the only one that
> > doesn't have other issues is "file-associated locks", which can be
> > distinguished against "process-associated" locks (aka classic POSIX
> > locks).
> 
> The names I have suggested are:
> 
>     file-associated locks
> 
> or
> 
>    file-handle locks
> 
> or (using POSIX terminology)
> 
>     file-description locks

Thanks for the CC: Michael, but to be honest
I don't really care what the name is, I just
want the functionality. I can change our build
system to cope with detecting it under any name
you guys choose :-).

Cheers,

	Jeremy.