On Wed, Dec 21 2016, Jeff Layton wrote:

> @@ -2072,7 +2093,12 @@ inode_cmp_iversion(const struct inode *inode, const u64 old)
>  static inline bool
>  inode_iversion_need_inc(struct inode *inode)
>  {
> -	return true;
> +	bool ret;
> +
> +	spin_lock(&inode->i_lock);
> +	ret = inode->i_state & I_VERS_BUMP;
> +	spin_unlock(&inode->i_lock);
> +	return ret;
>  }
>  

I know this code gets removed, so this isn't really important.
By why do you take the spinlock here?  What are you racing again?

Thanks,
NeilBrown