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

From: Rich Felker
Date: Mon Apr 21 2014 - 14:48:47 EST


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
> >
> > 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...

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
file-private.

Rich
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/