From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: iget4/read_inode2 race in get_new_inode
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 20:52:52 +0100
Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Message-ID: <20020429205252.B31052@infradead.org>
References: <Pine.GSO.4.21.0204291342330.2918-100000@weyl.math.psu.edu> <20020429161430.GA3999@ravel.coda.cs.cmu.edu> <Pine.GSO.4.21.0204291342330.2918-100000@weyl.math.psu.edu> <5.1.0.14.2.20020429191445.049258b0@pop.cus.cam.ac.uk> <1020105046.16224.246.camel@jen.americas.sgi.com> <20020429193941.A25992@infradead.org> <1020108056.16274.288.camel@jen.americas.sgi.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Anton Altaparmakov <aia21@cantab.net>,
	Jan Harkes <jaharkes@cs.cmu.edu>,
	Alexander Viro <viro@math.psu.edu>,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Chris Mason <mason@suse.com>
Return-path: <linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
To: Steve Lord <lord@sgi.com>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1020108056.16274.288.camel@jen.americas.sgi.com>; from lord@sgi.com on Mon, Apr 29, 2002 at 02:20:56PM -0500
List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org

On Mon, Apr 29, 2002 at 02:20:56PM -0500, Steve Lord wrote:
> Yes, these were just making what we had done more obvious. Here is a
> slight modification, I would prefer reiserfs expertise be involved in
> removal of read_inode2.

Code looks okay to be (besides ->read_inode2 stayying, but that can
be removed as next step).