From: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 02/19] fs: don't take the i_lock in inode_inc_iversion
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2018 09:43:51 -0500
Message-ID: <20180119144351.GA11735@fieldses.org>
References: <20180109141059.25929-1-jlayton@kernel.org>
 <20180109141059.25929-3-jlayton@kernel.org>
 <20180118214534.GB5299@fieldses.org>
 <1516372594.3588.11.camel@kernel.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, neilb@suse.de,
        jack@suse.de, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, tytso@mit.edu,
        adilger.kernel@dilger.ca, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org,
        darrick.wong@oracle.com, david@fromorbit.com,
        linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, clm@fb.com, jbacik@fb.com,
        dsterba@suse.com, linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org,
        zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com, dmitry.kasatkin@gmail.com,
        linux-afs@lists.infradead.org, dhowells@redhat.com,
        jaltman@auristor.com, krzk@kernel.org
To: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1516372594.3588.11.camel@kernel.org>
Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org

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.