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 <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>

1 files changed, 4 insertions, 4 deletions

diff --git a/fs/jffs2/dir.c b/fs/jffs2/dir.c
index 23245191c5b5..ad7774d32095 100644
--- a/fs/jffs2/dir.c
+++ b/fs/jffs2/dir.c
@@ -226,8 +226,8 @@ static int jffs2_create(struct inode *dir_i, struct dentry *dentry,
                   __func__, inode->i_ino, inode->i_mode, inode->i_nlink,
                   f->inocache->pino_nlink, inode->i_mapping->nrpages);
 
-        d_instantiate(dentry, inode);
         unlock_new_inode(inode);
+        d_instantiate(dentry, inode);
         return 0;
 
  fail:
@@ -446,8 +446,8 @@ static int jffs2_symlink (struct inode *dir_i, struct dentry *dentry, const char
         mutex_unlock(&dir_f->sem);
         jffs2_complete_reservation(c);
 
-        d_instantiate(dentry, inode);
         unlock_new_inode(inode);
+        d_instantiate(dentry, inode);
         return 0;
 
  fail:
@@ -591,8 +591,8 @@ static int jffs2_mkdir (struct inode *dir_i, struct dentry *dentry, umode_t mode
         mutex_unlock(&dir_f->sem);
         jffs2_complete_reservation(c);
 
-        d_instantiate(dentry, inode);
         unlock_new_inode(inode);
+        d_instantiate(dentry, inode);
         return 0;
 
  fail:
@@ -766,8 +766,8 @@ static int jffs2_mknod (struct inode *dir_i, struct dentry *dentry, umode_t mode
         mutex_unlock(&dir_f->sem);
         jffs2_complete_reservation(c);
 
-        d_instantiate(dentry, inode);
         unlock_new_inode(inode);
+        d_instantiate(dentry, inode);
         return 0;
 
  fail: