lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Apr]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] locks: rename file-private locks to file-description locks
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


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-04-21 21:21    [W:0.058 / U:1.264 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site