Re: [PATCH 1/6] writeback: pass writeback_control down tomove_expired_inodes()

[Jan Kara]

On Thu 22-07-10 13:09:29, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> This is to prepare for moving the dirty expire policy to move_expired_inodes().
> No behavior change.
  Looks OK.

Acked-by: Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>

> Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  fs/fs-writeback.c |   16 ++++++++--------
>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> 
> --- linux-next.orig/fs/fs-writeback.c	2010-07-21 20:12:38.000000000 +0800
> +++ linux-next/fs/fs-writeback.c	2010-07-21 20:14:38.000000000 +0800
> @@ -213,8 +213,8 @@ static bool inode_dirtied_after(struct i
>   * Move expired dirty inodes from @delaying_queue to @dispatch_queue.
>   */
>  static void move_expired_inodes(struct list_head *delaying_queue,
> -			       struct list_head *dispatch_queue,
> -				unsigned long *older_than_this)
> +				struct list_head *dispatch_queue,
> +				struct writeback_control *wbc)
>  {
>  	LIST_HEAD(tmp);
>  	struct list_head *pos, *node;
> @@ -224,8 +224,8 @@ static void move_expired_inodes(struct l
>  
>  	while (!list_empty(delaying_queue)) {
>  		inode = list_entry(delaying_queue->prev, struct inode, i_list);
> -		if (older_than_this &&
> -		    inode_dirtied_after(inode, *older_than_this))
> +		if (wbc->older_than_this &&
> +		    inode_dirtied_after(inode, *wbc->older_than_this))
>  			break;
>  		if (sb && sb != inode->i_sb)
>  			do_sb_sort = 1;
> @@ -257,10 +257,10 @@ static void move_expired_inodes(struct l
>   *                 => b_more_io inodes
>   *                 => remaining inodes in b_io => (dequeue for sync)
>   */
> -static void queue_io(struct bdi_writeback *wb, unsigned long *older_than_this)
> +static void queue_io(struct bdi_writeback *wb, struct writeback_control *wbc)
>  {
>  	list_splice_init(&wb->b_more_io, &wb->b_io);
> -	move_expired_inodes(&wb->b_dirty, &wb->b_io, older_than_this);
> +	move_expired_inodes(&wb->b_dirty, &wb->b_io, wbc);
>  }
>  
>  static int write_inode(struct inode *inode, struct writeback_control *wbc)
> @@ -519,7 +519,7 @@ void writeback_inodes_wb(struct bdi_writ
>  	wbc->wb_start = jiffies; /* livelock avoidance */
>  	spin_lock(&inode_lock);
>  	if (!wbc->for_kupdate || list_empty(&wb->b_io))
> -		queue_io(wb, wbc->older_than_this);
> +		queue_io(wb, wbc);
>  
>  	while (!list_empty(&wb->b_io)) {
>  		struct inode *inode = list_entry(wb->b_io.prev,
> @@ -548,7 +548,7 @@ static void __writeback_inodes_sb(struct
>  	wbc->wb_start = jiffies; /* livelock avoidance */
>  	spin_lock(&inode_lock);
>  	if (!wbc->for_kupdate || list_empty(&wb->b_io))
> -		queue_io(wb, wbc->older_than_this);
> +		queue_io(wb, wbc);
>  	writeback_sb_inodes(sb, wb, wbc, true);
>  	spin_unlock(&inode_lock);
>  }
> 
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>
SUSE Labs, CR
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/