From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 14/18] fs: Protect inode->i_state with th einode->i_lock
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2010 04:18:43 -0400
Message-ID: <20101008081843.GB17577@infradead.org>
References: <1286515292-15882-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com>
 <1286515292-15882-15-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com>
 <20101008074932.GC24089@infradead.org>
 <20101008080428.GW4681@dastard>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
To: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20101008080428.GW4681@dastard>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org

> 
> Ah, done thinking now! I was so the i_state field had been set
> before the inode was added to various lists and potentially
> accessable to other threads. I should probably add a comment to that
> effect, right?

Yes, please.