Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > 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 Yes. > >> > +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) Sure. Will make the change. -ritesh
