[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZDVTjX/ZtJZWkHyD@casper.infradead.org>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2023 13:33:17 +0100
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc: "Ritesh Harjani (IBM)" <ritesh.list@...il.com>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
"Darrick J . Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>,
Ojaswin Mujoo <ojaswin@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFCv2 2/8] libfs: Add __generic_file_fsync_nolock implementation
On Mon, Apr 10, 2023 at 10:27:10PM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 10:51:50AM +0530, Ritesh Harjani (IBM) wrote:
> > +/**
> > + * __generic_file_fsync_nolock - generic fsync implementation for simple
> > + * filesystems with no inode lock
>
> No reallz need for the __ prefix in the name.
It kind of makes sense though.
generic_file_fsync does the flush
__generic_file_fsync doesn't do the flush
__generic_file_fsync_nolock doesn't do the flush and doesn't lock/unlock
> > +extern int __generic_file_fsync_nolock(struct file *, loff_t, loff_t, int);
>
> No need for the extern. And at least I personally prefer to spell out
> the parameter names to make the prototype much more readable.
Agreed, although I make an exception for the 'struct file *'. Naming that
parameter adds no value, but a plain int is just obscene.
int __generic_file_fsync_nolock(struct file *, loff_t start, loff_t end,
bool datasync);
(yes, the other variants don't use a bool for datasync, but they should)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists