Re: [PATCHv5 2/9] fs/buffer.c: Add generic_buffer_fsync implementation

[Ritesh Harjani (IBM) <ritesh.list@gmail.com>]

Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.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