Re: [RFCv2 2/8] libfs: Add __generic_file_fsync_nolock implementation

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

Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org> writes:

> On Mon, Apr 10, 2023 at 10:27:10PM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 10:51:50AM +0530, Ritesh Harjani (IBM) wrote:
>> > +/**
>> > + * __generic_file_fsync_nolock - generic fsync implementation for simple
>> > + * filesystems with no inode lock
>>
>> No reallz need for the __ prefix in the name.
>
> It kind of makes sense though.
>
> generic_file_fsync does the flush
> __generic_file_fsync doesn't do the flush
> __generic_file_fsync_nolock doesn't do the flush and doesn't lock/unlock

Yes.

>
>> > +extern int __generic_file_fsync_nolock(struct file *, loff_t, loff_t, int);
>>
>> No need for the extern.  And at least I personally prefer to spell out
>> the parameter names to make the prototype much more readable.
>
> Agreed, although I make an exception for the 'struct file *'.  Naming that
> parameter adds no value, but a plain int is just obscene.
>
> int __generic_file_fsync_nolock(struct file *, loff_t start, loff_t end,
> 		bool datasync);
>
> (yes, the other variants don't use a bool for datasync, but they should)

Sure. Will make the change.

-ritesh