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 22:04:29 -0700
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
To:     Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Cc:     Ritesh Harjani <ritesh.list@gmail.com>,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
        "Darrick J . Wong" <djwong@kernel.org>,
        Ojaswin Mujoo <ojaswin@linux.ibm.com>,
        Disha Goel <disgoel@linux.ibm.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv5 2/9] fs/buffer.c: Add generic_buffer_fsync
 implementation
Message-ID: <ZD4k3Sp7wDQu4wkU@infradead.org>
References: <20230417110149.mhrksh4owqkfw5pa@quack3>
 <87o7nmivqm.fsf@doe.com>
 <20230417164550.yw6p4ddruutxqqax@quack3>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20230417164550.yw6p4ddruutxqqax@quack3>
Precedence: bulk

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.