Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Tue, 11 Apr 2023 20:42:28 +0530
Message-Id: <87zg7ezc4j.fsf@doe.com>
From:   Ritesh Harjani (IBM) <ritesh.list@gmail.com>
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc:     linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org,
        Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
        "Darrick J . Wong" <djwong@kernel.org>,
        Ojaswin Mujoo <ojaswin@linux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFCv2 2/8] libfs: Add __generic_file_fsync_nolock implementation
In-Reply-To: <ZDVTjX/ZtJZWkHyD@casper.infradead.org>
Precedence: bulk

Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org> 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