On Fri, Apr 14, 2023 at 02:51:48PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > 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. I would not change the existing function. Just do the right thing for the new helper and slowly migrate over without complicating this series.
