On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 10:00:21AM +0800, Gui Jianfeng wrote:
[..]
> @@ -2137,7 +2366,7 @@ void elv_fq_unset_request_ioq(struct request_queue *q, struct request *rq)
> void bfq_init_entity(struct io_entity *entity, struct io_group *iog)
> {
> entity->ioprio = entity->new_ioprio;
> - entity->weight = entity->new_weight;
> + entity->weight = entity->new_weigh;
> entity->ioprio_class = entity->new_ioprio_class;
> entity->sched_data = &iog->sched_data;
> }
> diff --git a/block/elevator-fq.h b/block/elevator-fq.h
> index db3a347..0407633 100644
> --- a/block/elevator-fq.h
> +++ b/block/elevator-fq.h
> @@ -253,6 +253,14 @@ struct io_group {
> #endif
> };
>
> +struct policy_node {
Would "io_policy_node" be better?
> + struct list_head node;
> + char dev_name[32];
> + void *key;
> + unsigned long weight;
> + unsigned long ioprio_class;
> +};
> +
> /**
> * struct bfqio_cgroup - bfq cgroup data structure.
> * @css: subsystem state for bfq in the containing cgroup.
> @@ -269,6 +277,9 @@ struct io_cgroup {
>
> unsigned long weight, ioprio_class;
>
> + /* list of policy_node */
> + struct list_head list;
> +
How about "struct list_head policy_list" or "struct list_head io_policy"?
Thanks
Vivek
--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
