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:   Thu, 20 Apr 2023 20:12:56 +0530
Message-Id: <87jzy6iphr.fsf@doe.com>
From:   Ritesh Harjani (IBM) <ritesh.list@gmail.com>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Cc:     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
In-Reply-To: <ZD4k3Sp7wDQu4wkU@infradead.org>
Precedence: bulk

Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> writes:

> 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.

Yes. I was going to use this one as this is more explicit.

Thanks Jan & Christoph,
I will spin a new revision soon with the suggested changes.

-ritesh