From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from galois.linutronix.de (Galois.linutronix.de [193.142.43.55]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8175F4A02 for ; Wed, 18 Mar 2026 07:24:40 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=193.142.43.55 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1773818681; cv=none; b=TdAGCqFnVEKvWZDh3tii6EbL3N7sX+qJ8vojEqiYckalnlthOh0NUlySFE5m5Z0BI/9LNudWCmIveUSR5SrvPuqmkUmwa5hIDjDJwgy52fo8zYR8W3NxOqf8eaL5GlkbjWAIJs6qDaeknwCZR3Y/qubUN9wNPJMrlFZzTDz1W1w= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1773818681; c=relaxed/simple; bh=I4awxfqk4O7MQlZuO3DMH2SeFRu0qfiWRR1f/Rdcsjo=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=fhmZ1xyapN3ZynXl/amoOeaQ2x0gAbM79376vrmuPgrZF0FGOvKR/wL1m/OhVU9avYazjivCOvFCsKSlmIpdHZztOuY/82MjYjWOtNtyiJ+A+VsZPERew2iCDxsj4Bl7ryBOCIvZBo5k4vTXwsfSTsVrUqYO6lRIv/V87tFcqAw= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linutronix.de; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linutronix.de; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b=S7lNnBev; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b=sYJiqZbW; arc=none smtp.client-ip=193.142.43.55 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linutronix.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linutronix.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b="S7lNnBev"; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b="sYJiqZbW" Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2026 08:24:36 +0100 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020; t=1773818678; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=GMXojMRx2DusSv/c5foBS++mXTfilxtffy+hvVganPA=; b=S7lNnBevReHY99KsphuvNO/RK9P26Ns+4nArqabBAs1aBiuHflX+bv+F5qvBlR4+2ljCsv 4ghLWAw7eXvoyKM4agFSwLDTsQirl6Cb3lYs15mATHR4H9Suz0KRc7xYxnPuwdz/K6v7xt OjyBiWzESZ7awsJbWfKleMx6+RkAYeR3iQK0sATcjWYzoLKnpgtiOdn/MSeJcdEuQmv2j2 rzQAbKFWbZDajTEQZPXi3OVDJ7cuhgvblcvgWupHh+1hf99uXLAhv3JkQP+m3pZMcabAdC j3BjhQUMOeqD5xSj5xJt8twr4bWoUUnSx15waNrj2TS6URBSezG/HxHhTSvkPw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020e; t=1773818678; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=GMXojMRx2DusSv/c5foBS++mXTfilxtffy+hvVganPA=; b=sYJiqZbWtA9QAURWngFUcR85rU8xJ40MigLKGcHADExuVS2kSkbUQ+itgzSefupLqBrc/8 N4d7P2Q42WVCnhDw== From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior To: "Tantilov, Emil S" Cc: intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, anthony.l.nguyen@intel.com, aleksandr.loktionov@intel.com, przemyslaw.kitszel@intel.com, andrew+netdev@lunn.ch, davem@davemloft.net, edumazet@google.com, kuba@kernel.org, pabeni@redhat.com, clrkwllms@kernel.org, rostedt@goodmis.org, linux-rt-devel@lists.linux.dev, sgzhang@google.com, boolli@google.com Subject: Re: [PATCH iwl-net 0/3] idpf: virtchnl locking and async fixes Message-ID: <20260318072436.4JmVdDfK@linutronix.de> References: <20260316232819.6872-1-emil.s.tantilov@intel.com> <20260317090054.DuPZ6O0O@linutronix.de> <7247024b-fc8d-4a75-ba15-a10399db03bc@intel.com> <20260317143850.BLrnAox8@linutronix.de> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: 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