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: "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk dot manpages at gmail dot com>
- To: Christoph Hellwig <hch at infradead dot org>, Theodore Ts'o <tytso at mit dot edu>, Rich Felker <dalias at libc dot org>, 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>
- Cc: mtk dot manpages at gmail dot com
- Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2014 22:10:33 +0200
- 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> <20140421190659 dot GA10884 at infradead dot org>
On 04/21/2014 09:06 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> 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,
("open file description" was already in SUSv1 (1994))
> but struct file has never
> been used in an API description.
> Introducing it now entirely out of
> context is not helpful at all.
In principle, I agree, though it might be helpful for some
people to mention this term in a side-note in, say, open(2).
Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/
Linux/UNIX System Programming Training: http://man7.org/training/