Re: inode_lock "decorative"?

Alexander Viro (viro@math.psu.edu)
Thu, 25 Nov 1999 16:25:27 -0500 (EST)


On Thu, 25 Nov 1999, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:

> What I ask you is _why_ you increment and the iput by hand. Just remove
> the i_count++ and the iput() and all should remains fine. Basically you
> run always with an i_count of 2 while you could run all the time with an
> i_count of 1 without differences (unless I am missing something... hmm).

Correct fix is to get rid of this sock->inode thing completely. Check what
fields of ->inode are used - you'll see that we can easily get rid of that
mess. Will make things much cleaner. I can roll such patch tomorrow (after
the new cache/symlink stuff will be done).

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/