Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 15 Jan 2009 23:53:18 -0800 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] ecryptfs: some inode attrs, and a question |
| |
On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 16:42:31 +0900 hooanon05@yahoo.co.jp wrote:
> 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).
atomic_inc() is fully atomic too. atomic_inc_return() is "special", in that it does an atomic_inc(), but also returns the result of that increment to the caller.
| |