Re: [PATCH net v3 1/3] macsec: introduce dedicated workqueue for SA crypto cleanup

[Sabrina Dubroca <sd@queasysnail.net>]

2026-05-11, 22:00:05 +0800, Jinliang Zheng wrote:
> On Sun, 11 May 2026, Sabrina Dubroca wrote:
> > > +	macsec_wq = alloc_ordered_workqueue("macsec", 0);
> >
> > Why did you pick an ordered workqueue instead of a normal one?
> 
> I chose an ordered workqueue for its serialized execution, which
> avoids potential ordering issues between concurrent SA destructions.
> In hindsight, there is no actual ordering dependency between SA
> cleanups, so a normal workqueue is sufficient here.
> 
> Should I send a v4 with that switched to alloc_workqueue()?

Probably doesn't really matter, but since your cover letter mentions
"unnecessary latency", maybe? Would it make a difference in your use
case? I think it would mostly help when we try to unload the module
with lots of SAs, otherwise the only difference will be that actual
freeing of resources will be a bit slower. (OTOH it would avoid giving
the "wrong impression", that the ordered variant of the WQ is needed,
when it's not)


Either way, the patch looks ok to me, so for this version:

Reviewed-by: Sabrina Dubroca <sd@queasysnail.net>

-- 
Sabrina