From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] writeback: Separate inode requeueing after writeback
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 10:43:40 -0400
Message-ID: <20120430144340.GE10964@infradead.org>
References: <1332284191-21076-1-git-send-email-jack@suse.cz>
 <1332284191-21076-5-git-send-email-jack@suse.cz>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
To: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Return-path: <linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from 173-166-109-252-newengland.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([173.166.109.252]:57094
	"EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK)
	by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752771Ab2D3Onm (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 30 Apr 2012 10:43:42 -0400
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1332284191-21076-5-git-send-email-jack@suse.cz>
Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org>

> +static void inode_wb_requeue(struct inode *inode, struct bdi_writeback *wb,
> +			     struct writeback_control *wbc)

I'd just call this requeue_inode to fit the naming scheme in elsewhere
in the file.  I'd also suggest adding a small top of function comment
explaining it.

Otherwise looks good,

Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>