This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH] locks: rename file-private locks to "open file description locks"
- From: Boaz Harrosh <openosd at gmail dot com>
- To: Jeff Layton <jlayton at redhat dot com>, linux-fsdevel at vger dot kernel dot org
- Cc: 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>, libc-alpha <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>, Michael Kerrisk <mtk dot manpages at gmail dot com>, Christoph Hellwig <hch at infradead dot org>, Carlos O'Donell <carlos at redhat dot com>, Stefan Metzmacher <metze at samba dot org>, Andy Lutomirski <luto at amacapital dot net>, Frank Filz <ffilzlnx at mindspring dot com>, Theodore Ts'o <tytso at mit dot edu>
- Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 17:45:31 +0300
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] locks: rename file-private locks to "open file description locks"
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1398169383-10743-1-git-send-email-jlayton at redhat dot com>
On 04/22/2014 03:23 PM, Jeff Layton wrote:
<>
>
> We're going to have to live with these for a long time, so it's
> important that we be happy with the names before we're stuck with them.
> The consensus on the lists so far is that they should be rechristened as
> "open file description locks".
>
I completely agree with the rename. (Though could you please post
the rest of the rename patches for review)
Just a very small nit. My native language is not English but I would
rather you use "file-descriptor" (with an '-' as well) and not
use "description" in the English name of the lock. This is
because stated like that, "description" might refer to the
locks and not to the file in the sentence. file-descriptor is
more clear I think. (For me it was confusing at first before I realized
what you meant)
Just my $0.017
Thanks