linux-ext4 - Re: [RFCv3 02/10] 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: <20230414125148.du7r6ljdyzckoysh@quack3>
Date:   Fri, 14 Apr 2023 14:51:48 +0200
From:   Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
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>,
        Disha Goel <disgoel@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFCv3 02/10] libfs: Add __generic_file_fsync_nolock
 implementation

On Thu 13-04-23 22:59:24, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Still no fan of the naming and placement here.  This is specific
> to the fs/buffer.c infrastructure.

I'm fine with moving generic_file_fsync() & friends to fs/buffer.c and
creating the new function there if it makes you happier. But I think
function names should be consistent (hence the new function would be named
__generic_file_fsync_nolock()). I agree the name is not ideal and would use
cleanup (along with transitioning everybody to not take i_rwsem) but I
don't want to complicate this series by touching 13+ callsites of
generic_file_fsync() and __generic_file_fsync(). That's for a separate
series.

								Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>
SUSE Labs, CR