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/ext2/namei.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) (limited to 'fs/ext2') diff --git a/fs/ext2/namei.c b/fs/ext2/namei.c index 9ba7de0e5903..73b0d9519836 100644 --- a/fs/ext2/namei.c +++ b/fs/ext2/namei.c @@ -41,8 +41,8 @@ static inline int ext2_add_nondir(struct dentry *dentry, struct inode *inode) { int err = ext2_add_link(dentry, inode); if (!err) { - d_instantiate(dentry, inode); unlock_new_inode(inode); + d_instantiate(dentry, inode); return 0; } inode_dec_link_count(inode); @@ -242,8 +242,8 @@ static int ext2_mkdir(struct inode * dir, struct dentry * dentry, umode_t mode) if (err) goto out_fail; - d_instantiate(dentry, inode); unlock_new_inode(inode); + d_instantiate(dentry, inode); out: return err; -- cgit v1.2.3-70-g09d2