Re: [PATCH net-next 1/1] Separate locks for rmbs/sndbufs linked lists of different lengths

[Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@amazon.com>]

From: liqiang <liqiang64@huawei.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2024 21:21:47 +0800
> @@ -596,10 +632,26 @@ static struct smc_buf_desc *smc_llc_get_next_rmb(struct smc_link_group *lgr,
>  static struct smc_buf_desc *smc_llc_get_first_rmb(struct smc_link_group *lgr,
>  						  int *buf_lst)
>  {
> -	*buf_lst = 0;
> +	smc_llc_lock_in_turn(lgr->rmbs_lock, buf_lst, SMC_LLC_INTURN_LOCK_INIT);
>  	return smc_llc_get_next_rmb(lgr, buf_lst, NULL);
>  }
>  
> +static inline void smc_llc_bufs_wrlock_all(struct rw_semaphore *lock, int nums)
> +{
> +	int i = 0;
> +
> +	for (; i < nums; i++)
> +		down_write(&lock[i]);

LOCKDEP will complain here.  You may want to test with
CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING=y


> +}
> +
> +static inline void smc_llc_bufs_wrunlock_all(struct rw_semaphore *lock, int nums)
> +{
> +	int i = 0;
> +
> +	for (; i < nums; i++)
> +		up_write(&lock[i]);
> +}
> +
>  static int smc_llc_fill_ext_v2(struct smc_llc_msg_add_link_v2_ext *ext,
>  			       struct smc_link *link, struct smc_link *link_new)
>  {