Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Thu, 18 Apr 2019 16:08:34 +0100
From:   Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
To:     David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Cc:     Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>,
        Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@dilger.ca>,
        linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-afs@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-ntfs-dev@lists.sourceforge.net,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 5/6] ext4: Search for an inode to update under the
 RCU lock if we can
Message-ID: <20190418150833.GE2217@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
References: <155559635133.21702.4737487773869377967.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
 <155559640398.21702.15109713276957584268.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <155559640398.21702.15109713276957584268.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 03:06:44PM +0100, David Howells wrote:
> +	inode = find_inode_by_ino_rcu(sb, ino);
> +	if (!inode)
> +		return;
>  
>  	if ((inode->i_ino != ino) ||
>  	    (inode->i_state & (I_FREEING | I_WILL_FREE | I_NEW |
>  			       I_DIRTY_INODE)) ||
>  	    ((inode->i_state & I_DIRTY_TIME) == 0))

Umm...  The situation with memory barriers here needs to be documented,
IMO.  And I'm not sure if the thing is actually correct...