Re: [PATCH] ecryptfs: some inode attrs, and a question

[hooanon05]

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/