On Thu, 05 Feb 2026, Jeff Layton wrote: > On Wed, 2026-02-04 at 15:57 +1100, NeilBrown wrote: > > From: NeilBrown <[email protected]> > > > > simple_done_creating() and end_creating() are identical. > > So change the former to use the latter. This further centralises > > unlocking of directories. > > > > Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <[email protected]> > > --- > > fs/libfs.c | 3 +-- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/fs/libfs.c b/fs/libfs.c > > index f1860dff86f2..db18b53fc189 100644 > > --- a/fs/libfs.c > > +++ b/fs/libfs.c > > @@ -2318,7 +2318,6 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(simple_start_creating); > > /* parent must have been held exclusive since simple_start_creating() */ > > void simple_done_creating(struct dentry *child) > > { > > - inode_unlock(child->d_parent->d_inode); > > - dput(child); > > + end_creating(child); > > } > > EXPORT_SYMBOL(simple_done_creating); > > nit: seems like it would be better to turn this into a static inline
True ... but then it could have been a static inline anyway. I'd rather not change it without good reason, or knowing what it was written that way. Al: do you have an opinion on this? Thanks, NeilBrown
