On Mon, Dec 11, 2023 at 4:27 PM Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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@xxxxxxxx> 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 >
