This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH] locks: rename file-private locks to file-description locks
- From: Christoph Hellwig <hch at infradead dot org>
- To: Theodore Ts'o <tytso at mit dot edu>, Rich Felker <dalias at libc dot org>, "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk dot manpages at gmail dot com>, Jeff Layton <jlayton at redhat dot com>, linux-fsdevel at vger dot kernel dot org, linux-kernel at vger dot kernel dot org, samba-technical at lists dot samba dot org, Ganesha NFS List <nfs-ganesha-devel at lists dot sourceforge dot net>, Carlos O'Donell <carlos at redhat dot com>, libc-alpha <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>, "Stefan (metze) Metzmacher" <metze at samba dot org>, Christoph Hellwig <hch at infradead dot org>
- Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2014 12:06:59 -0700
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] locks: rename file-private locks to file-description locks
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1398087935-14001-1-git-send-email-jlayton at redhat dot com> <20140421140246 dot GB26358 at brightrain dot aerifal dot cx> <535529FA dot 8070709 at gmail dot com> <20140421161004 dot GC26358 at brightrain dot aerifal dot cx> <5355644C dot 7000801 at gmail dot com> <20140421184841 dot GA5105 at thunk dot org> <20140421185144 dot GF26358 at brightrain dot aerifal dot cx> <20140421190410 dot GC5105 at thunk dot org>
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 03:04:10PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> I think what you mean is that there is no need that we expose the name
> "struct file". My point is that "struct file" is actually a much
> _better_ name than "file description". Heck, "open file object" would
> be better name than "file description".
Open file description is what all current standards use. I'm pretty
sure really old ones just used open file, but struct file has never
been used in an API description. Introducing it now entirely out of
context is not helpful at all.