Re: [PATCH v5 02/19] fs: don't take the i_lock in inode_inc_iversion

[J. Bruce Fields]

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.