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:   Mon, 17 Apr 2023 09:32:55 +0200
From:   Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
To:     Ritesh Harjani <ritesh.list@gmail.com>
Cc:     Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org,
        "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: <20230417073255.kzauk5qwu5bjcsmh@quack3>
References: <20230414142053.gvekvcgxmkjfeht7@quack3>
 <871qkmzgdl.fsf@doe.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <871qkmzgdl.fsf@doe.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri 14-04-23 19:59:42, Ritesh Harjani wrote:
> Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> 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@suse.com>
SUSE Labs, CR