On Mon, Oct 07, 2024 at 11:20:24AM +0530, Selvin Xavier wrote: > On Sat, Oct 5, 2024 at 12:57 AM Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Sep 18, 2024 at 08:06:00PM -0700, Selvin Xavier wrote: > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/hw/bnxt_re/qplib_rcfw.c b/drivers/infiniband/hw/bnxt_re/qplib_rcfw.c > > > index 5bef9b4..85bfedc 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/infiniband/hw/bnxt_re/qplib_rcfw.c > > > +++ b/drivers/infiniband/hw/bnxt_re/qplib_rcfw.c > > > @@ -634,17 +634,21 @@ static int bnxt_qplib_process_qp_event(struct bnxt_qplib_rcfw *rcfw, > > > case CREQ_QP_EVENT_EVENT_QP_ERROR_NOTIFICATION: > > > err_event = (struct creq_qp_error_notification *)qp_event; > > > qp_id = le32_to_cpu(err_event->xid); > > > + spin_lock_nested(&rcfw->tbl_lock, SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING); > > > > Why would you need this lockdep annotation? tbl_lock doesn't look > > nested into itself to me. > bnxt_qplib_process_qp_event is always called with a spinlock > (hwq->lock ) in the caller. i.e. bnxt_qplib_service_creq. I have used > the nested variant because of this. That is not what nested is for. Nested different locks are fine, you only need nested if you are nesting the same lock Jason
