From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/58] new helper: end_writeback()
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2010 09:02:16 -0400
Message-ID: <20100609130216.GB3861@infradead.org>
References: <E1OM75W-0004Y4-W4@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
To: Al Viro <viro@ftp.linux.org.uk>
Return-path: <linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([18.85.46.34]:43260 "EHLO
	bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751446Ab0FINCR (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 9 Jun 2010 09:02:17 -0400
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <E1OM75W-0004Y4-W4@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org>

On Tue, Jun 08, 2010 at 11:16:02PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> 
> Essentially, the minimal variant of ->evict_inode().  It's
> a trimmed-down clear_inode(), sans any fs callbacks.  Once
> it returns we know that no async writeback will be happening;
> every ->evict_inode() instance should do that once and do that
> before doing anything ->write_inode() could interfere with
> (e.g. freeing the on-disk inode).

Naming seems a bit unfortunate - this really sounds like something
in page writeback.  In fact I'd almost bet we had a function with
that name there in the past.

Care to slap an inode_ prefix on it?