On Wed 31-07-13 14:15:44, Dave Chinner 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
On Wed 31-07-13 14:15:44, Dave Chinner wrote:
From: Dave Chinner dchin...@redhat.com
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
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
From: Dave Chinner dchin...@redhat.com
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,
4 matches
Mail list logo