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

[Daniel Vacek]

On Mon, Dec 11, 2023 at 4:27 PM Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 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..

Yup, agreed. We ended up removing the lock completely in this function
with the other patch. This patch can be discarded.

--nX

> Jason
>