From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] fs: remove inode_lock from iput_final and
 prune_icache
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 05:40:38 +0100
Message-ID: <20101027044038.GE19804@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
References: <1288153384-8878-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com>
 <1288153384-8878-5-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: <1288153384-8878-5-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org

On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 03:23:04PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> From: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>
> 
> Now that inode state changes are protected by the inode->i_lock and
> the inode LRU manipulations by the inode_lru_lock, we can remove the
> inode_lock from prune_icache and the initial part of iput_final().
> 
> instead of using the inode_lock to protect the inode during
> iput_final, use the inode->i_lock instead. This protects the inode
> against new references being taken while we change the inode state
> to I_FREEING, as well as preventing prune_icache from grabbing the
> inode while we are manipulating it. Hence we no longer need the
> i???ode_lock in iput_final prior to setting I_FREEING on the inode.
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^

... the hell?  There's more such damage elsewhere in the thread; what's
going on?