Re: [PATCH iwl-net 0/3] idpf: virtchnl locking and async fixes

Tantilov, Emil S
2026-03-18T13:06:33Z

On 3/18/2026 12:24 AM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2026-03-17 12:30:39 [-0700], Tantilov, Emil S wrote:
>>> What would break if you make that lock a spinlock_t?
>>
>> Right. Scope and risk - these fixes are specifically for the async
>> handler and I did not want to touch the global locking that will
>> impact the entire VC handling. We do have series in flight for -next
>> that refactor that code, while moving it to libie:
>> https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20251117134912.18566-10-larysa.zaremba@intel.com/
>
> Now I understood. You fiddle with the completion's lock. That is
> something that should not have been done.
>
>> ... that also remove the raw spinlock. With that being said, I can look
>> into converting the lock to spinlock_t if that is the preferred approach.
>
> The preferred approach is that, if you pick raw_spinlock_t for locking,
> you are aware of all the consequences and you have a solid reason for
> it. The comment in the file says
> | For now, this API is only used from within a workqueue context;
> | - * raw_spin_lock() is enough.
>
> that is not it.

Understood. I will convert it in v2.

Thanks for the feedback!
Emil