On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 11:15:33AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 07:36:43AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > - 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. > > Ok, I've changed them to iref() calls and convert them to open > coding later on when necessary. Oh, NAK that - hit send too soon. I forgot - they're are done that way because they are under the inode_lock, and iref(), at this point in the series, takes the inode_lock. So while it looks weird, it has to stay that way otherwise it deadlocks..... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx -- 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
