| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2010 11:15:33 +1100 From: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com> To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> Cc: linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/18] fs: rework icount to be a locked variable On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 07:36:43AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > - 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. Ok, I've changed them to iref() calls and convert them to open coding later on when necessary. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@...morbit.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists