Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.34 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.34;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20231211131051.1500834-1-neelx@redhat.com> <20231211132217.GF4870@unreal>
 <20231211132522.GY1489931@ziepe.ca> <CACjP9X8+CgoQRjs2Y9A+OwWCVxMhKyqzLhEjaguxMavHsy8VRg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20231211152547.GC1489931@ziepe.ca>
In-Reply-To: <20231211152547.GC1489931@ziepe.ca>
From:   Daniel Vacek <neelx@redhat.com>
Date:   Mon, 11 Dec 2023 17:08:12 +0100
Message-ID: <CACjP9X-Oj2DFKY0bopMGTEAr1bShM4E+6TtskA+8Ym-bnAfnQA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] IB/ipoib: No need to hold the lock while printing the warning
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>
Cc:     Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org>, linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Dec 11, 2023 at 4:27=E2=80=AFPM Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca> wrot=
e:
>
> On Mon, Dec 11, 2023 at 03:09:13PM +0100, Daniel Vacek wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 11, 2023 at 2:25=E2=80=AFPM 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..

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

--nX

> Jason
>