xiaomi-sm8450/android_kernel_xiaomi_sm8450
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

inode: rename i_wb_list to i_io_list

Browse Source 
There's a small consistency problem between the inode and writeback
naming. Writeback calls the "for IO" inode queues b_io and
b_more_io, but the inode calls these the "writeback list" or
i_wb_list. This makes it hard to an new "under writeback" list to
the inode, or call it an "under IO" list on the bdi because either
way we'll have writeback on IO and IO on writeback and it'll just be
confusing. I'm getting confused just writing this!

So, rename the inode "for IO" list variable to i_io_list so we can
add a new "writeback list" in a subsequent patch.

Signed-off-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fb.com>
Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Tested-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>
This commit is contained in:
Dave Chinner
2015-03-04 14:07:22 -05:00
committed by Josef Bacik
parent e97fedb9ef
commit c7f5408493
5 changed files with 33 additions and 33 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

8
mm/backing-dev.c
View File

@@ -55,13 +55,13 @@ static int bdi_debug_stats_show(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
nr_dirty = nr_io = nr_more_io = nr_dirty_time = 0;
spin_lock(&wb->list_lock);
list_for_each_entry(inode, &wb->b_dirty, i_wb_list)
list_for_each_entry(inode, &wb->b_dirty, i_io_list)
nr_dirty++;
list_for_each_entry(inode, &wb->b_io, i_wb_list)
list_for_each_entry(inode, &wb->b_io, i_io_list)
nr_io++;
list_for_each_entry(inode, &wb->b_more_io, i_wb_list)
list_for_each_entry(inode, &wb->b_more_io, i_io_list)
nr_more_io++;
list_for_each_entry(inode, &wb->b_dirty_time, i_wb_list)
list_for_each_entry(inode, &wb->b_dirty_time, i_io_list)
if (inode->i_state & I_DIRTY_TIME)
nr_dirty_time++;
spin_unlock(&wb->list_lock);