Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.37 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.37;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20231005074858.65082-1-dg573847474@gmail.com> <20231006162835.79484017@kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20231006162835.79484017@kernel.org>
From:   Chengfeng Ye <dg573847474@gmail.com>
Date:   Sat, 7 Oct 2023 23:58:36 +0800
Message-ID: <CAAo+4rUE=+9Kp8CvMH3w15dJotkX03h=5YMV+hu-YSobkwj1NA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] atm: solos-pci: Fix potential deadlock on &cli_queue_lock
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Cc:     3chas3@gmail.com, davem@davemloft.net, horms@kernel.org,
        linux-atm-general@lists.sourceforge.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

Hi Jakub,

> and irqsave here. I think you're right that it's just softirq (== bh)
> that may deadlock, so no need to take the irqsave() version in process
> context.

Yes, spin_lock_bh() is enough.

I just found spin_lock_irqsave() is more frequently used in this file, so I
also used spin_lock_irqsave() here for uniformity consideration at that time.

Should I send a new patch series to change this to spin_lock_bh()? That's
better for performance consideration.

Thanks,
Chengfeng