On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 03:47:49PM -0400, Josef Sipek wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 09:38:18PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > struct bhv_vnode is on it's way out, so move the I/O count to the XFS inode.
> >
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>
> >
> > Index: linux-2.6-xfs/fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_aops.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux-2.6-xfs.orig/fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_aops.c 2007-08-23
> > 14:46:18.000000000 +0200
> > +++ linux-2.6-xfs/fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_aops.c 2007-08-23
> > 14:51:38.000000000 +0200
> > @@ -140,9 +140,11 @@ xfs_destroy_ioend(
> > next = bh->b_private;
> > bh->b_end_io(bh, !ioend->io_error);
> > }
> > - if (unlikely(ioend->io_error))
> > - vn_ioerror(ioend->io_vnode, ioend->io_error, __FILE__,__LINE__);
> > - vn_iowake(ioend->io_vnode);
> > + if (unlikely(ioend->io_error)) {
> > + vn_ioerror(XFS_I(ioend->io_inode), ioend->io_error,
> > + __FILE__,__LINE__);
>
> Should it still be called vn_* if it takes an xfs inode? (And yes, I realize
> this is a patch in the middle of the series.)
Eventually, yes, but that's really only cosmetic at this point. I'm
more concerned with the functional and structural changes at this point
and not so much the cosmetics. There are much bigger cosmetic changes
in the pipeline as a result of this patchset, I think...
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
Principal Engineer
SGI Australian Software Group
|