Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Tue, 20 Jul 2021 13:05:54 +0200
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
To:     Jia He <justin.he@arm.com>
Cc:     Ariel Elior <aelior@marvell.com>, GR-everest-linux-l2@marvell.com,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, nd@arm.com,
        Prabhakar Kushwaha <pkushwaha@marvell.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "qed: fix possible unpaired spin_{un}lock_bh in
 _qed_mcp_cmd_and_union()"
Message-ID: <20210720130554.5c85b3e6@cakuba>
In-Reply-To: <20210720092739.3539-1-justin.he@arm.com>
References: <20210720092739.3539-1-justin.he@arm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 20 Jul 2021 17:27:39 +0800, Jia He wrote:
> This reverts commit 2d2f5ded858a4f4659fc63e01dd55605598a8f05.

The hash looks wrong, the patch was applied to netdev/net AFAICT,
and the ref there is: 6206b7981a36 ("qed: fix possible unpaired
spin_{un}lock_bh in _qed_mcp_cmd_and_union()")

Please tag the subject with "net":

[PATCH net] Revert ...

> That patch added additional spin_{un}lock_bh(), which was harmless
> but pointless. The orginal code path has guaranteed the pair of
> spin_{un}lock_bh().
> 
> We'd better revert it before we find the exact root cause of the
> bug_on mentioned in that patch.
> 
> Cc: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
> Cc: Prabhakar Kushwaha <pkushwaha@marvell.com>
> Signed-off-by: Jia He <justin.he@arm.com>

Please also add a Fixes tag.

Fixes: 6206b7981a36 ("qed: fix possible unpaired spin_{un}lock_bh in _qed_mcp_cmd_and_union()")