linux-ext4 - Re: [RFCv2 2/8] libfs: Add __generic_file_fsync

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <87ttxlyz9p.fsf@doe.com>
Date:   Wed, 12 Apr 2023 19:32:26 +0530
From:   Ritesh Harjani (IBM) <ritesh.list@...il.com>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        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

Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> writes:

> On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 01:33:17PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>> 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
>
> Indeed.  Part of it is that the naming is a bit horrible.
> Maybe it should move to buffer.c and be called generic_buffer_fsync,
> or generic_block_fsync which still wouldn't be perfect but match the
> buffer.c naming scheme.
>

Eventually it anyways needs some work to see if we can kill the lock
variant all together. I didn't do that in this series which is
focused on ext2 conversion of iomap.
So, if it's not that bad, I would like to keep both function
definitions at one place so that it can be worked out later.

>>
>> > > +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);
>
> While I agree that it's not needed for the file, leaving it out is a bit
> silly.
>

Sure. Will fix it.

>> (yes, the other variants don't use a bool for datasync, but they should)
>
> .. including the ->fsync prototype to make it work ..

Sure, this work should go as a seperate series.

-ritesh