From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/8] inode: rename i_wb_list to i_io_list Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 05:06:59 -0700 Message-ID: <20150617120659.GE20286@infradead.org> References: <1434051673-13838-1-git-send-email-jbacik@fb.com> <1434051673-13838-6-git-send-email-jbacik@fb.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@fb.com, viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk, hch@infradead.org, jack@suse.cz, david@fromorbit.com, Dave Chinner To: Josef Bacik Return-path: Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.9]:42945 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753554AbbFQMG7 (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Jun 2015 08:06:59 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1434051673-13838-6-git-send-email-jbacik@fb.com> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 03:41:10PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote: > From: Dave Chinner > > 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. Looks good, Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig