Re: [PATCH 06/10] mm,btrfs: add a filemap_fdatawrite_kick_nr helper

[Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>]

On Tue, Oct 14, 2025 at 11:33:26AM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Tue 14-10-25 06:47:23, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 13, 2025 at 01:58:15PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > I don't love filemap_fdatawrite_kick_nr() either. Your
> > > filemap_fdatawrite_nrpages() is better but so far we had the distinction
> > > that filemap_fdatawrite* is for data integrity writeback and filemap_flush
> > > is for memory cleaning writeback. And in some places this is important
> > > distinction which I'd like to keep obvious in the naming. So I'd prefer
> > > something like filemap_flush_nrpages() (to stay consistent with previous
> > > naming) or if Christoph doesn't like flush (as that's kind of overloaded
> > > word) we could have filemap_writeback_nrpages().
> > 
> > Not a big fan of flush, but the important point in this series is
> > to have consistent naming.
> 
> I fully agree on that.

*nod*

> >  If we don't like the kick naming we should standardize on _flush (or
> >  whatever) and have the _range and _nrpages variants of whatever we pick
> >  for the base name.
> > 
> > Anyone with strong feelings and or good ideas about naming please speak
> > up now.
> 
> I agree with either keeping filemap_flush* or using filemap_writeback* (and
> renaming filemap_flush to filemap_writeback).

I'd prefer filemap_flush* because most people are already familiar
with that naming and the expected semnatics. But I could live with
filemap_writebacki*, too. Both are better than "kick", IMO.

-Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com