From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2016 20:21:05 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
To: Jeff Layton <jlayton@poochiereds.net>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/15] __d_add(): don't drop/regain ->d_lock
Message-ID: <20160424192105.GM25498@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
References: <20160416005232.GV25498@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
 <1460768127-31822-10-git-send-email-viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
 <1461521349.28145.2.camel@poochiereds.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1461521349.28145.2.camel@poochiereds.net>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org>

On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 02:09:09PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:

> Should the above be a new __d_instantiate_locked instead of open-coding 
> it?

Nope - it gets rehash mashed into it a few commits later.  In principle
we could try to fish the common helper out of it and __d_instantiate()
once the dust settles, but IMO there's not much point.