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
On Thu, 2018-01-18 at 16:45 -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 09:10:42AM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > From: Jeff Layton
> >
> > The rationale for taking the i_lock when incrementing this value is
> > lost in antiquity. The readers of the field don't
On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 09:10:42AM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote:
> From: Jeff Layton
>
> The rationale for taking the i_lock when incrementing this value is
> lost in antiquity. The readers of the field don't take it (at least
> not universally), so my assumption is that it was
On Tue 09-01-18 09:10:42, Jeff Layton wrote:
> From: Jeff Layton
>
> The rationale for taking the i_lock when incrementing this value is
> lost in antiquity. The readers of the field don't take it (at least
> not universally), so my assumption is that it was only done here to
From: Jeff Layton
The rationale for taking the i_lock when incrementing this value is
lost in antiquity. The readers of the field don't take it (at least
not universally), so my assumption is that it was only done here to
serialize incrementors.
If that is indeed the case,