> - atomic_inc(&inode->i_count); > + spin_lock(&inode->i_lock); > + inode->i_ref++; > + spin_unlock(&inode->i_lock); Why isn't this using iref? > + spin_lock(&inode->i_lock); > + inode->i_ref++; > + spin_unlock(&inode->i_lock); Same here and in a couple of others. Hmm, I guess because the i_lock later covers other things around. But it still looks a bit weird. Except for this stuff the patch looks good, Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> -- 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
