Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> writes: > On Fri 14-04-23 06:12:00, Christoph Hellwig wrote: >> 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. > > OK, I can live with that temporary naming inconsistency I guess. So > the function will be __buffer_file_fsync()? This name was suggested before, so if that's ok I will go with this - "generic_buffer_fsync()". It's definition will lie in fs/buffer.c and it's declaration in include/linux/buffer_head.h Is that ok? -ritesh > > Honza > -- > Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxxx> > SUSE Labs, CR
