From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-87145-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 10230 invoked by alias); 16 Jan 2012 13:29:50 -0000
Received: (qmail 10215 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Jan 2012 13:29:49 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.2 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from fencepost.gnu.org (HELO fencepost.gnu.org) (140.186.70.10)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 13:29:34 +0000
Received: from eliz by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.71)	(envelope-from <eliz@gnu.org>)	id 1Rmmcv-0000OE-GV; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 08:29:33 -0500
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 14:48:00 -0000
Message-Id: <E1Rmmcv-0000OE-GV@fencepost.gnu.org>
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
To: "Ulrich Weigand" <uweigand@de.ibm.com>
CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
In-reply-to: <201201161232.q0GCWN33024751@d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com>	(uweigand@de.ibm.com)
Subject: Re: [rfc v2][4/6] Readlink as file I/O target operation
Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
References: <201201161232.q0GCWN33024751@d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com>
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2012-01/txt/msg00542.txt.bz2

> Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 13:32:23 +0100 (CET)
> From: "Ulrich Weigand" <uweigand@de.ibm.com>
> Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
> 
> > > +@item vFile:readlink: @var{pathname}
> > > +Read value of symbolic link @var{pathname} on the target.  Return
> > > +the number of bytes read, or -1 if an error occurs.
> > 
> > This part is okay, but please don't use "pathname" when you really
> > mean "file name".  GNU Coding Standards frown on using "path" or its
> > derivatives for anything but PATH-style directory lists.
> 
> I'll be happy to use "filename" instead, but the currently existing
> packets (open, unlink) also use "pathname" today.  Should those be
> changed to "filename" too?

In general, yes.  But I cannot in good faith ask you to do that as
part of this patch.  So let's make a first small step in this
1000-mile journey by using "filename" in just this part.  I'll add to
my todo to fix the rest, if no one beats me to it.

Thanks.

> (B.t.w. note that those packets are directly related to the corresponding
> POSIX routines open/unlink/readlink -- the documentation of those routines,
> whether in POSIX itself or in the corresponding Linux man pages consistently
> refers to those arguments as "path" or "pathname" ...  I'm wondering whether
> it is a deliberate decision on the part of the GNU Coding Standards to deviate
> from established terminology in that area?)

Everyone else calls the system "Linux", while the FSF insists on
"GNU/Linux".  Nothing new here.