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]
Date:   Thu, 20 Apr 2023 20:12:56 +0530
From:   Ritesh Harjani (IBM) <ritesh.list@...il.com>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc:     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

Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> writes:

> 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.

Yes. I was going to use this one as this is more explicit.

Thanks Jan & Christoph,
I will spin a new revision soon with the suggested changes.

-ritesh

Powered by blists - more mailing lists