On 2022/5/25 19:01, Sagi Grimberg wrote: > iirc this was reported before, based on my analysis lockdep is giving > a false alarm here. The reason is that the id_priv->handler_mutex cannot > be the same for both cm_id that is handling the connect and the cm_id > that is handling the rdma_destroy_id because rdma_destroy_id call > is always called on a already disconnected cm_id, so this deadlock > lockdep is complaining about cannot happen. Hi Jason, Bart and Sagi, I also think it is actually a false positive. The cm_id handling the connection and the cm_id calling rdma_destroy_id() cannot be the same one, right? > > I'm not sure how to settle this. Do you have any suggestion to remove the false positive by refactoring the related RDMA/CM code. Sorry, I didn't know how to do it for now. Best Regards, Xiao Yang
