Re: [PATCHv5 2/9] fs/buffer.c: Add generic_buffer_fsync implementation

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Mon, Apr 17, 2023 at 06:45:50PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> Hum, I think the difference sync vs fsync is too subtle and non-obvious.

Agreed.

> I can see sensible pairs like:
> 
> 	__generic_buffers_fsync() - "__" indicates you should know what you
> 				are doing when calling this
> 	generic_buffers_fsync()
> 
> or
> 
> 	generic_buffers_fsync()
> 	generic_file_fsync() - difficult at this point as there's name
> 			       clash
> 
> or
> 
> 	generic_buffers_fsync_noflush()
> 	generic_buffers_fsync() - obvious what the default "safe" choice
> 				  is.
> 
> or something like that.

I'd prefer the last option as the most explicit one.



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [NTFS 3]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [NTFS 3]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]

  Powered by Linux