: writeback: remove writeback_inodes_wbc
Subsystems (6)
PATCH 1/2 : writeback: remove writeback_inodes_wbc
This was just an odd wrapper around writeback_inodes_wb. Removing this also allows to get rid of the bdi member of struct writeback_control which was rather out of place there.
fs/fs-writeback.c +2 -10
@@ -614,8 +614,8 @@ static int writeback_sb_inodes(struct sureturn 1 ; } -static void writeback_inodes_wb (struct bdi_writeback *wb, -struct writeback_control *wbc) +void writeback_inodes_wb (struct bdi_writeback *wb, +struct writeback_control *wbc) {int ret =0 ;
@@ -660,13 +660,6 @@ static void writeback_inodes_wb(struct b/* Leave any unwritten inodes on b_io */ } -void writeback_inodes_wbc (struct writeback_control *wbc) -{ -struct backing_dev_info *bdi = wbc->bdi; - -writeback_inodes_wb (&bdi->wb, wbc); -} -/* * The maximum number of pages to writeout in a single bdi flush/kupdate * operation. We do this so we don't hold I_SYNC against an inode for
@@ -705,7 +698,6 @@ static long wb_writeback(struct bdi_writ struct wb_writeback_args *args) {struct writeback_control wbc = { - .bdi = wb->bdi, .sb = args->sb, .sync_mode = args->sync_mode, .older_than_this =NULL ,
include/linux/writeback.h +2 -3
@@ -27,8 +27,6 @@ enum writeback_sync_modes {* in a manner such that unspecified fields are set to zero. */ struct writeback_control { -struct backing_dev_info *bdi;/* If !NULL, only write back this -queue */ struct super_block *sb;/* if !NULL, only write inodes from this super_block */ enum writeback_sync_modes sync_mode;
@@ -66,7 +64,8 @@ int inode_wait(void *);void writeback_inodes_sb (struct super_block *);int writeback_inodes_sb_if_idle (struct super_block *);void sync_inodes_sb (struct super_block *); -void writeback_inodes_wbc (struct writeback_control *wbc); +void writeback_inodes_wb (struct bdi_writeback *wb, +struct writeback_control *wbc);long wb_do_writeback (struct bdi_writeback *wb,int force_wait);void wakeup_flusher_threads (long nr_pages);
mm/backing-dev.c +1 -2
@@ -340,14 +340,13 @@ int bdi_has_dirty_io(struct backing_dev_static void bdi_flush_io (struct backing_dev_info *bdi) {struct writeback_control wbc = { - .bdi = bdi, .sync_mode =WB_SYNC_NONE , .older_than_this =NULL , .range_cyclic =1 , .nr_to_write =1024 , }; -writeback_inodes_wbc (&wbc); +writeback_inodes_wb (&bdi->wb, &wbc); }/*
mm/page-writeback.c +1 -2
@@ -495,7 +495,6 @@ static void balance_dirty_pages(struct afor (;;) {struct writeback_control wbc = { - .bdi = bdi, .sync_mode =WB_SYNC_NONE , .older_than_this =NULL , .nr_to_write = write_chunk,
@@ -537,7 +536,7 @@ static void balance_dirty_pages(struct a* up. */ if (bdi_nr_reclaimable > bdi_thresh) { -writeback_inodes_wbc (&wbc); +writeback_inodes_wb (&bdi->wb, &wbc); pages_written += write_chunk - wbc.nr_to_write;get_dirty_limits (&background_thresh, &dirty_thresh, &bdi_thresh, bdi);
fs/afs/write.c +0 -1
@@ -680,7 +680,6 @@ int afs_writeback_all(struct afs_vnode * {struct address_space *mapping = vnode->vfs_inode.i_mapping;struct writeback_control wbc = { - .bdi = mapping->backing_dev_info, .sync_mode =WB_SYNC_ALL , .nr_to_write =LONG_MAX , .range_cyclic =1 ,
fs/btrfs/extent_io.c +0 -2
@@ -2594,7 +2594,6 @@ int extent_write_full_page(struct extent .sync_io = wbc->sync_mode == WB_SYNC_ALL, };struct writeback_control wbc_writepages = { - .bdi = wbc->bdi, .sync_mode = wbc->sync_mode, .older_than_this =NULL , .nr_to_write =64 ,
@@ -2628,7 +2627,6 @@ int extent_write_locked_range(struct ext .sync_io = mode == WB_SYNC_ALL, };struct writeback_control wbc_writepages = { - .bdi = inode->i_mapping->backing_dev_info, .sync_mode = mode, .older_than_this =NULL , .nr_to_write = nr_pages *2 ,
Quoted 3 lines · Christoph Hellwig
This was just an odd wrapper around
writeback_inodes_wb. Removing this also allows to get rid of the bdi member of structwriteback_controlwhich was rather out of place there.
Both this and the next look fine to me, but probably more appropriate for 2.6.36.
Signature · 1 line
Jens Axboe
Quoted 7 lines · Jens Axboe
Quoted 3 lines · Christoph Hellwig
This was just an odd wrapper around
writeback_inodes_wb. Removing this also allows to get rid of the bdi member of structwriteback_controlwhich was rather out of place there.Both this and the next look fine to me, but probably more appropriate for 2.6.36.
Yes, absolutely.
Quoted 10 lines · Christoph Hellwig
Quoted 7 lines · Jens Axboe
Quoted 3 lines · Christoph Hellwig
This was just an odd wrapper around
writeback_inodes_wb. Removing this also allows to get rid of the bdi member of structwriteback_controlwhich was rather out of place there.Both this and the next look fine to me, but probably more appropriate for 2.6.36.
Yes, absolutely.
Great, so we're on the same page. I'll queue them up for .36.
Signature · 1 line
Jens Axboe