On Fri 14-04-23 19:59:42, Ritesh Harjani wrote: > 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? Yes, that is fine by me. And I suppose this variant will also issue the cache flush, won't it? But then we also need __generic_buffer_fsync() without issuing the cache flush for ext4 (we need to sync parent before issuing a cache flush) and FAT. Honza -- Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxxx> SUSE Labs, CR
