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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20230413-gewichen-ziehung-3ced0ad0982b@brauner> Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2023 11:51:59 +0200 From: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org> To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, "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 Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 04:43:03AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > 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. > > > > > > > +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. I think we should just be consistent and try to enforce that the parameter name is added in new patches. It's often easier for grepping and there's really not a lot of value in leaving it out in general.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists