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()? Honza -- Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxxx> SUSE Labs, CR
