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

[Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>]

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.

> Thanks,
> Emil

Sebastian