Re: [PATCH] IB/ipoib: No need to hold the lock while printing the warning

[Jason Gunthorpe]

On Mon, Dec 11, 2023 at 03:09:13PM +0100, Daniel Vacek wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 11, 2023 at 2:25 PM Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 11, 2023 at 03:22:17PM +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> >
> > > Please fill some text in commit message.
> >
> > Yes, explain *why* you are doing this
> 
> Oh, sorry. I did not mention it but there's no particular reason
> really. The @Subject says it all. There should be no logical or
> functional change other than reducing the span of that critical
> section. In other words, just nitpicking, not a big deal.
> 
> While checking the code (and past changes) related to the other issue
> I also sent today I just noticed the way 08bc327629cbd added the
> spin_lock before returning from this function and it appeared to me
> it's clearer the way I'm proposing here.
> 
> Honestly, I was not looking into why the lock is released for that
> completion. And I'm not changing that logic.
> 
> If this complete() can be called with priv->lock held, the cleanup
> would look different, of course.

complete() can be called under spinlocks just fine, AFAIK..

Jason