On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 09:36:34AM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote: > Shrug...we have that problem with the spinlock in place too. The bottom > line is that reads of this value are not serialized with the increment > at all. OK, so this wouldn't even be a new bug. > I'm not 100% thrilled with this patch, but I think it's probably better > not to add the i_lock all over the place, even as an interim step in > cleaning this stuff up. Makes sense to me. I've got no comments on the rest of the series, except that I'm all for it. Thanks for persisting--it turned out to be more involved than I'd imagined! --b.
