On Sat, 19 Jun 1999, Steve Dodd wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 17, 1999 at 05:00:09PM -0400, Alexander Viro wrote:
>
> > Methink it isn't. Looks like the right thing to do is to keep first 16
> > inodes permanently in-core (iget() them upon ->read_super() and keep
> > pointers them in ntfs_super_info) and use normal ->i_sem for locking.
>
> What's the difference between inode->i_sem locking and inode->i_state & I_LOCK
> locking?
The former: "I'm going to change the sucker, everybody else - stay the
hell off; state may be inconsistent"
The latter: "Icache says: I'm syncing this sucker to disk".
