This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: should we change the name/macros of file-private locks?
- From: "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk dot manpages at gmail dot com>
- To: Jeff Layton <jlayton at redhat dot com>, "Stefan (metze) Metzmacher" <metze at samba dot org>
- Cc: Michael Kerrisk <mtk dot manpages at gmail dot com>, libc-alpha <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>, Michael Kerrisk-manpages <mtk dot manpages at googlemail dot com>, "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at redhat dot com>, samba-technical at lists dot samba dot org, lkml <linux-kernel at vger dot kernel dot org>, Jeremy Allison <jra at google dot com>, "linux-fsdevel at vger dot kernel dot org" <linux-fsdevel at vger dot kernel dot org>, Ganesha NFS List <nfs-ganesha-devel at lists dot sourceforge dot net>
- Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 22:08:54 +0200
- Subject: Re: should we change the name/macros of file-private locks?
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20140416145746 dot 66b7441c at tlielax dot poochiereds dot net> <CAKgNAkgqZDcT0jda8XS+4HrJzXjzwehqciHbkNuAVY3fNkH4zQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <534F0745 dot 70705 at samba dot org> <20140417075254 dot 28e470ed at tlielax dot poochiereds dot net> <534FC342 dot 8010008 at gmail dot com>
- Reply-to: mtk dot manpages at gmail dot com
>> In the docs we could take pains to point out that these are
>> file-_description_ locks and not file-_descriptor_ locks, and outline
>> why that is so (which is something I'm trying to make crystal clear in
>> the docs anyway).
>> Does anyone object to that?
> Well, I'd be silly to object, but maybe we should still allow a day
> for further comment?
One further point. I know the intent is to get this scheme into POSIX.
Have any conversations happened about this so far on the POSIX/Austin
lists? If yes, it might be worth also linking those folks into the