> Exactly, we already called to spin_lock_irqsave(), there is no value in > doing it twice. Oh yeah, I just notice that the lock acquisition of &sde->flushlist_lock is always nested inside &sde->tail_lock due to the goto. Then it is true that no need for irq invariant lock/unlock on &sde->flushlist_lock. Thanks much for your reply and your time. Best Regards, Chengfeng
