On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 04:23:54PM +0200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote: > > There's at least two problems to solve here: > > 1) "File private locks" is _meaningless_ as a term. Elsewhere > > (http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.network.samba.internals/76414/focus=1685376),
It's indeed not a very good choice, but the new name is even worse. Just call them non-broken locks? :) Or not give them a name an just append a 2 to the fcntls? :) > 2) The new API constants (F_SETLKP, F_SETLKPW, F_GETLKP) have names > that are visually very close to the traditional POSIX lock names > (F_SETLK, F_SETLKW, F_GETLK). That's an accident waiting to happen > when someone mistypes in code and/or misses such a misttyping > when reading code. That really must be fixed. I don't think so. They also should have a name very similar because they have the same semantics with a major bug fixed. In fact I can't think of anyone who would actually want the old behavior. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
