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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

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.