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:   Fri, 14 Apr 2023 14:51:48 +0200
From:   Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc:     "Ritesh Harjani (IBM)" <ritesh.list@gmail.com>,
        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>,
        Disha Goel <disgoel@linux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFCv3 02/10] libfs: Add __generic_file_fsync_nolock
 implementation
Message-ID: <20230414125148.du7r6ljdyzckoysh@quack3>
References: <cover.1681365596.git.ritesh.list@gmail.com>
 <e65768eb0fe145c803ba4afdc869a1757d51d758.1681365596.git.ritesh.list@gmail.com>
 <ZDjrvCbCwxN+mRUS@infradead.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ZDjrvCbCwxN+mRUS@infradead.org>
Precedence: bulk

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.

								Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>
SUSE Labs, CR