On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 11:21:13AM +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote: > > In all three cases, new_inode_pseudo(), iget_locked() and iget5_locked(), > > we own the new inode exclusively at this point and therefore taking > > ->i_lock to protect ->i_state/->i_hash against concurrent access is > > superfluous. We'd still need some sort of barrier to make sure the state is visible to all CPUs before it becomes visible, usually by another spin_unlock happing later. If you have a workload where removing these is critical please document these issues in the code and resubmit it with an explanation of the workload where it helps. If it's just a cleanup I wouldn't bother with it. -- 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
