From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: invalidate_inode_buffers call in invalidate_list?
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 22:18:52 -0400
Message-ID: <20101018021852.GA26485@infradead.org>
References: <20101017233900.GA1525@infradead.org>
 <20101018011150.GI29677@dastard>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
To: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Return-path: <linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([18.85.46.34]:36864 "EHLO
	bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1750961Ab0JRCS6 (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Sun, 17 Oct 2010 22:18:58 -0400
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20101018011150.GI29677@dastard>
Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org>

On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 12:11:50PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > While we're
> > at it - any reaso not to consider I_NEW inodes as busy in
> > invalidate_list?
> 
> Not that I can think of. I'd probably leave the WARN_ON() condition
> there, though, so that if we do ever encounter them we hear about
> it...

The WARN_ON is already unreachable - we check for I_NEW a couple
of lines above and never drop it until after we reach the WARN_ON.