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: <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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists