On Mon, Apr 10, 2023 at 10:27:10PM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 10:51:50AM +0530, Ritesh Harjani (IBM) wrote: > > +/** > > + * __generic_file_fsync_nolock - generic fsync implementation for simple > > + * filesystems with no inode lock > > No reallz need for the __ prefix in the name. It kind of makes sense though. generic_file_fsync does the flush __generic_file_fsync doesn't do the flush __generic_file_fsync_nolock doesn't do the flush and doesn't lock/unlock > > +extern int __generic_file_fsync_nolock(struct file *, loff_t, loff_t, int); > > No need for the extern. And at least I personally prefer to spell out > the parameter names to make the prototype much more readable. Agreed, although I make an exception for the 'struct file *'. Naming that parameter adds no value, but a plain int is just obscene. int __generic_file_fsync_nolock(struct file *, loff_t start, loff_t end, bool datasync); (yes, the other variants don't use a bool for datasync, but they should)
