From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/18] fs: rework icount to be a locked variable
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 07:36:43 -0400
Message-ID: <20101013113643.GD19456@infradead.org>
References: <1286928961-15157-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com>
 <1286928961-15157-8-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: 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: <1286928961-15157-8-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org

> -		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.

Except for this stuff the patch looks good,


Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>