From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: hooanon05@yahoo.co.jp
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ecryptfs: some inode attrs, and a question
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 16:42:31 +0900
Message-ID: <9845.1232091751@jrobl>
References: <7471.1231827621@jrobl> <20090115150332.f72ad0f8.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	mhalcrow@us.ibm.com, ecryptfs-devel@lists.launchpad.net
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Return-path: <linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from vsmtp04.dti.ne.jp ([202.216.231.139]:40728 "EHLO
	vsmtp04.dti.ne.jp" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1754044AbZAPHml (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 16 Jan 2009 02:42:41 -0500
In-Reply-To: <20090115150332.f72ad0f8.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org>


Andrew Morton:
> > +	atomic_inc_return(&lower_dentry->d_inode->i_count);
> > +	atomic_inc_return(&lower_inode->i_count);
> 
> atomic_inc() would suffice here, yes?

I thought that ..._return() is smp safe and necessary here.
Because lower_inode may be touched by lower fs (outside of ecryptfs).

Anyway my original patch seemed to be already dropped.


J. R. Okajima