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: <87jzy6iphr.fsf@doe.com> 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