From 8fc37ec54cd8e37193b0d42809b785ff19661c34 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Al Viro Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 09:18:15 +0400 Subject: don't expose I_NEW inodes via dentry->d_inode d_instantiate(dentry, inode); unlock_new_inode(inode); is a bad idea; do it the other way round... Signed-off-by: Al Viro --- fs/ext3/namei.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) (limited to 'fs/ext3') diff --git a/fs/ext3/namei.c b/fs/ext3/namei.c index 85286db..8f4fdda 100644 --- a/fs/ext3/namei.c +++ b/fs/ext3/namei.c @@ -1671,8 +1671,8 @@ static int ext3_add_nondir(handle_t *handle, int err = ext3_add_entry(handle, dentry, inode); if (!err) { ext3_mark_inode_dirty(handle, inode); - d_instantiate(dentry, inode); unlock_new_inode(inode); + d_instantiate(dentry, inode); return 0; } drop_nlink(inode); @@ -1836,8 +1836,8 @@ out_clear_inode: if (err) goto out_clear_inode; - d_instantiate(dentry, inode); unlock_new_inode(inode); + d_instantiate(dentry, inode); out_stop: brelse(dir_block); ext3_journal_stop(handle); -- cgit v1.1