On Fri, Oct 08, 2010 at 07:04:28PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > inode->i_ino = ++last_ino; > > > inode->i_state = 0; > > > + __inode_add_to_lists(sb, NULL, inode); > > > spin_unlock(&inode_lock); > > > } > > > return inode; > > > > What's the point in doing this move? > > hmmmm, let me think on that.... > > > > > > @@ -953,8 +966,8 @@ static struct inode *get_new_inode(struct super_block *sb, > > > if (set(inode, data)) > > > goto set_failed; > > > > > > - __inode_add_to_lists(sb, b, inode); > > > inode->i_state = I_NEW; > > > + __inode_add_to_lists(sb, b, inode); > > > > Same here. > > Ah, done thinking now! I was so the i_state field had been set > before the inode was added to various lists and potentially > accessable to other threads. I should probably add a comment to that > effect, right? In addition to the comment get_new_inode_fast also needs the same treatment. I also wonder if we need to set I_NEW in new_inode and then later call unlock_new_inode on it. It's not on the hash at that point, but it is on the per-sbi list which we use for a few things. With current callers it seems safe, but the whole thing also is rather fragile. Better left for another patch, though. -- 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
