[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZD4k3Sp7wDQu4wkU@infradead.org>
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2023 22:04:29 -0700
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc: Ritesh Harjani <ritesh.list@...il.com>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
"Darrick J . Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>,
Ojaswin Mujoo <ojaswin@...ux.ibm.com>,
Disha Goel <disgoel@...ux.ibm.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv5 2/9] fs/buffer.c: Add generic_buffer_fsync
implementation
On Mon, Apr 17, 2023 at 06:45:50PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> Hum, I think the difference sync vs fsync is too subtle and non-obvious.
Agreed.
> I can see sensible pairs like:
>
> __generic_buffers_fsync() - "__" indicates you should know what you
> are doing when calling this
> generic_buffers_fsync()
>
> or
>
> generic_buffers_fsync()
> generic_file_fsync() - difficult at this point as there's name
> clash
>
> or
>
> generic_buffers_fsync_noflush()
> generic_buffers_fsync() - obvious what the default "safe" choice
> is.
>
> or something like that.
I'd prefer the last option as the most explicit one.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists