From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755571Ab0JTCRg (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Oct 2010 22:17:36 -0400 Received: from ipmail06.adl2.internode.on.net ([150.101.137.129]:4181 "EHLO ipmail06.adl2.internode.on.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753358Ab0JTCRf (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Oct 2010 22:17:35 -0400 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEADfuvUx5LdoF/2dsb2JhbAChVXLDGoVKBI9L Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 13:17:32 +1100 From: Nick Piggin To: Boaz Harrosh Cc: npiggin@kernel.dk, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [patch 33/35] fs: icache introduce inode_get/inode_get_ilock Message-ID: <20101020021732.GB3740@amd> References: <20101019034216.319085068@kernel.dk> <20101019034658.963540555@kernel.dk> <4CBD703B.5060607@panasas.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4CBD703B.5060607@panasas.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 12:17:31PM +0200, Boaz Harrosh wrote: > On 10/19/2010 05:42 AM, npiggin@kernel.dk wrote: > > Index: linux-2.6/fs/exofs/namei.c > > =================================================================== > > --- linux-2.6.orig/fs/exofs/namei.c 2010-10-19 14:18:58.000000000 +1100 > > +++ linux-2.6/fs/exofs/namei.c 2010-10-19 14:19:00.000000000 +1100 > > @@ -153,9 +153,7 @@ > > > > inode->i_ctime = CURRENT_TIME; > > inode_inc_link_count(inode); > > - spin_lock(&inode->i_lock); > > - inode->i_count++; > > - spin_unlock(&inode->i_lock); > > + inode_get(inode); > > > > return exofs_add_nondir(dentry, inode); > > } > > Why won't you define an intermediate inode_get() in patch 08/35 and > change both puts and gets of all file_systems in one patch? Instead > of two tree sweeping patches. (At least for all the trivial places > like here) I hadn't wanted to make non locking related changes before inode lock was removed. But yes it may make sense just to do the name change. I'll see how it looks. Thanks, Nick