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

[Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>]

On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 14:48:29 -0400
Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org> wrote:

> 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

Is "open-private" or "open-file-private" really any better than
"file-private" ? They're all names that only a mother could love and
I'm not sure any of them are really any clearer than the others. Also:

<pedantic>
Legacy fcntl locks are associated with the _process_ and not the
underlying file, per-se.
</pedantic>


-- 
Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>