On Mon, 2010-07-12 at 11:33 -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 10:49:54AM +0300, Artem Bityutskiy wrote: > > From: Artem Bityutskiy <Artem.Bityutskiy@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > The write-back code mixes words "thread" and "task" for the > > same things - this is not a problem, but this is still an > > inconsistency which makes it a bit difficult to read the code. > > It is better to use term "thread" consistently everywhere. > > > > This patch amends commentaries and makes them refer the forker thread and the > > write-back threads as "threads", not "tasks". > > A convention I tend to use and I've seen in various places is to always > use _task for the storage of the task_struct pointer, and thread > everywhere else. This especially helps with having foo_thread for the > actual thread and foo_task for a global variable keeping the > task_struct pointer. OK, thanks for feed-back, then I'll drop the patch which renames bdi->wb.task to bdi->wb.thread. Namely, this one: [PATCH 3/4] writeback: harmonize writeback threads and tasks - 2 -- Best Regards, Artem Bityutskiy (Артём Битюцкий) -- 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
