From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/11] vfs: factor out inode_insert5()
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2018 07:02:15 +0100
Message-ID: <20180610060159.GS30522@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
References: <20180529144143.16378-1-mszeredi@redhat.com>
 <20180529144143.16378-10-mszeredi@redhat.com>
 <20180610054902.GQ30522@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180610054902.GQ30522@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-unionfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-unionfs@vger.kernel.org

On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 06:49:10AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 04:41:41PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > From: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>
> > 
> > Split out common helper for race free insertion of an already allocated
> > inode into the cache.  Use this from iget5_locked() and
> > insert_inode_locked4().  Make iget5_locked() use new_inode()/iput() instead
> > of alloc_inode()/destroy_inode() directly.
> 
> ... thus hitting the sucker with ->evict_inode(), in condition that is quite
> likely to be unfit to be seen by that.
> 
> NAK.

To clarify: objection here is against the switch to new_inode/iput.  The rest is
sane.  What makes new_inode() better here, anyway?