On 10/19/2010 05:42 AM, npiggin@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > Factor open coded inode lock, increment, unlock into a function inode_get(). > Rename __iget to inode_get_ilock. > > Signed-off-by: Nick Piggin <npiggin@xxxxxxxxx> > > --- <> > Index: linux-2.6/fs/exofs/inode.c > =================================================================== > --- linux-2.6.orig/fs/exofs/inode.c 2010-10-19 14:18:58.000000000 +1100 > +++ linux-2.6/fs/exofs/inode.c 2010-10-19 14:19:16.000000000 +1100 > @@ -1162,9 +1162,7 @@ > /* increment the refcount so that the inode will still be around when we > * reach the callback > */ > - spin_lock(&inode->i_lock); > - inode->i_count++; > - spin_unlock(&inode->i_lock); > + inode_get(inode); > > ios->done = create_done; > ios->private = inode; > Index: linux-2.6/fs/exofs/namei.c > =================================================================== > --- linux-2.6.orig/fs/exofs/namei.c 2010-10-19 14:18:58.000000000 +1100 > +++ linux-2.6/fs/exofs/namei.c 2010-10-19 14:19:00.000000000 +1100 > @@ -153,9 +153,7 @@ > > inode->i_ctime = CURRENT_TIME; > inode_inc_link_count(inode); > - spin_lock(&inode->i_lock); > - inode->i_count++; > - spin_unlock(&inode->i_lock); > + inode_get(inode); > > return exofs_add_nondir(dentry, inode); > } Why won't you define an intermediate inode_get() in patch 08/35 and change both puts and gets of all file_systems in one patch? Instead of two tree sweeping patches. (At least for all the trivial places like here) Thanks Boaz -- 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
