inode: rename i_wb_list to i_io_list

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>

1 files changed, 4 insertions, 4 deletions

diff --git a/mm/backing-dev.c b/mm/backing-dev.c
index dac5bf59309d..ee8d7fd07be3 100644
--- a/mm/backing-dev.c
+++ b/mm/backing-dev.c
@@ -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);