Re: [PATCH 07/18] fs: rework icount to be a locked variable

[Dave Chinner]

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-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/