[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAOQ4uxicztq5toBst2tEO4MfbrTPyhyP8KVwki36V9fZ=24RCw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2020 13:15:22 +0300
From: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc: Ritesh Harjani <riteshh@...ux.ibm.com>,
Ext4 <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>,
Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca>,
"Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
"Aneesh Kumar K . V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com>,
Murphy Zhou <jencce.kernel@...il.com>,
Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
overlayfs <linux-unionfs@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] ext4/overlayfs: fiemap related fixes
On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 9:28 AM Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Apr 25, 2020 at 01:49:43PM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> > I would use as generic helper name generic_fiemap_checks()
> > akin to generic_write_checks() and generic_remap_file_range_prep() =>
> > generic_remap_checks().
>
> None of the other fiemap helpers use the redundant generic_ prefix.
Fine. I still don't like the name _validate() so much because it implies
yes or no, not length truncating.
What's more, if we decide that FIEMAP_FLAG_SYNC handling should
be done inside this generic helper, we would definitely need to rename it
again. So how about going for something a bit more abstract like
fiemap_prep() or whatever.
What is your take about FIEMAP_FLAG_SYNC handling btw?
Thanks,
Amir.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists