Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 19 Jan 2018 09:43:51 -0500 | From | "J. Bruce Fields" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v5 02/19] fs: don't take the i_lock in inode_inc_iversion |
| |
On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 09:36:34AM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote: > Shrug...we have that problem with the spinlock in place too. The bottom > line is that reads of this value are not serialized with the increment > at all.
OK, so this wouldn't even be a new bug.
> I'm not 100% thrilled with this patch, but I think it's probably better > not to add the i_lock all over the place, even as an interim step in > cleaning this stuff up.
Makes sense to me.
I've got no comments on the rest of the series, except that I'm all for it.
Thanks for persisting--it turned out to be more involved than I'd imagined!
--b.
| |