[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9845.1232091751@jrobl>
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 16:42:31 +0900
From: hooanon05@...oo.co.jp
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
mhalcrow@...ibm.com, ecryptfs-devel@...ts.launchpad.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ecryptfs: some inode attrs, and a question
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
--
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