erofs: use feature_incompat rather than requirements

As Christoph said [1], "This is only cosmetic, why
not stick to feature_compat and feature_incompat?"

In my thought, requirements means "incompatible"
instead of "feature" though.

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20190902125109.GA9826@infradead.org/
Reported-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Signed-off-by: Gao Xiang <gaoxiang25@huawei.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20190904020912.63925-7-gaoxiang25@huawei.com
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>

1 files changed, 1 insertions, 1 deletions

diff --git a/fs/erofs/internal.h b/fs/erofs/internal.h
index 141ea424587d..7ff36f404ec3 100644
--- a/fs/erofs/internal.h
+++ b/fs/erofs/internal.h
@@ -96,7 +96,7 @@ struct erofs_sb_info {
 
         u8 uuid[16];                    /* 128-bit uuid for volume */
         u8 volume_name[16];             /* volume name */
-        u32 requirements;
+        u32 feature_incompat;
 
         unsigned int mount_opt;