On Thu 13-04-23 22:59:24, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > Still no fan of the naming and placement here. This is specific > to the fs/buffer.c infrastructure. I'm fine with moving generic_file_fsync() & friends to fs/buffer.c and creating the new function there if it makes you happier. But I think function names should be consistent (hence the new function would be named __generic_file_fsync_nolock()). I agree the name is not ideal and would use cleanup (along with transitioning everybody to not take i_rwsem) but I don't want to complicate this series by touching 13+ callsites of generic_file_fsync() and __generic_file_fsync(). That's for a separate series. Honza -- Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxxx> SUSE Labs, CR
