ecryptfs-devel team mailing list archive

[Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 16:42:31 +0900 hooanon05@xxxxxxxxxxx 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.