Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:4 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:4;
Date:   Mon, 11 Dec 2023 11:25:47 -0400
From:   Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>
To:     Daniel Vacek <neelx@redhat.com>
Cc:     Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org>, linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] IB/ipoib: No need to hold the lock while printing the
 warning
Message-ID: <20231211152547.GC1489931@ziepe.ca>
References: <20231211131051.1500834-1-neelx@redhat.com>
 <20231211132217.GF4870@unreal>
 <20231211132522.GY1489931@ziepe.ca>
 <CACjP9X8+CgoQRjs2Y9A+OwWCVxMhKyqzLhEjaguxMavHsy8VRg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <CACjP9X8+CgoQRjs2Y9A+OwWCVxMhKyqzLhEjaguxMavHsy8VRg@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

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@ziepe.ca> 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