From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: scott.bauer@intel.com (Scott Bauer)
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2016 11:33:18 -0700
Subject: [RFC PATCH 5/6] nvme: Add unlock_from_suspend
In-Reply-To: <20161107184541.GA21698@localhost.localdomain>
References: <1477951099-3127-1-git-send-email-scott.bauer@intel.com>
 <1477951099-3127-6-git-send-email-scott.bauer@intel.com>
 <6a6a131a-09fe-4c7c-85a7-01149555e427@grimberg.me>
 <20161107184541.GA21698@localhost.localdomain>
Message-ID: <20161107183317.GA27936@sbauer-Z170X-UD5>

On Mon, Nov 07, 2016@01:45:42PM -0500, Keith Busch wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 01, 2016@10:18:13AM +0200, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
> > > -	spin_lock_irq(&nvmeq->q_lock);
> > > +	spin_lock_irqsave(&nvmeq->q_lock, flags);
> > >  	if (unlikely(nvmeq->cq_vector < 0)) {
> > >  		if (ns && !test_bit(NVME_NS_DEAD, &ns->flags))
> > >  			ret = BLK_MQ_RQ_QUEUE_BUSY;
> > >  		else
> > >  			ret = BLK_MQ_RQ_QUEUE_ERROR;
> > > -		spin_unlock_irq(&nvmeq->q_lock);
> > > +		spin_unlock_irqrestore(&nvmeq->q_lock, flags);
> > >  		goto out;
> > >  	}
> > >  	__nvme_submit_cmd(nvmeq, &cmnd);
> > >  	nvme_process_cq(nvmeq);
> > > -	spin_unlock_irq(&nvmeq->q_lock);
> > > +	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&nvmeq->q_lock, flags);
> > 
> > No documentation why this is needed...
> 
> Let's forget documenting why it's needed; this solution should instead
> figure out a way to make it so it's not needed.

This is some code that was used for previous iterations while we were testing.
We missed this and some other things in this patch set when we were cleaning up.
It's gone from V2 as well as the other weirdness in the patch.