On 7/5/23 2:47 AM, Chengfeng Ye wrote: >> 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. Agree. Thanks Leon for looking at this. I was out of the office and just now seen it. -Denny
