From c7f5408493aeb01532927b2276316797a03ed6ee Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Dave Chinner Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2015 14:07:22 -0500 Subject: 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 Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik Reviewed-by: Jan Kara Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig Tested-by: Dave Chinner --- mm/backing-dev.c | 8 ++++---- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) (limited to 'mm') 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); -- cgit v1.2.3