Re: [net-next,3/9] ice: migrate to netdev ops lock

[Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@intel.com>]

On 2/11/2026 9:13 AM, Alexander Lobakin wrote:
> I'm not frustrated at all :> I mentioned those 1.5 months only to say
> that during that time, none of the users of our tree faced any bugs,
> except one case which was fixed a long ago.
> 

I wouldn't trust an absence of reports in the case of subtle locking 
issues like this. At least one of the reports here is obviously valid:

ice_vsi_cfg_def_locked holds the netdev lock but calls 
ice_vsi_free_q_vectors in its goto cleanup logic.

Its a mistake in cleanup flow which is likely untested. Of course users 
haven't reproduced this because they haven't managed to get a failure
that would trigger a cleanup.

> I can't say it's a false positive, but I can't confirm the AI is
> absolutely correct here. At least a couple places mentioned that
> "shouldn't work" in fact works. It's not just me being Sarah Connor when
> it comes to AI, I just don't want people to trust it too much or authors
> to waste time proving that AI is wrong.
> 

I agree it is important to take the AI report with a grain of salt, and 
it is incredibly frustrating when you see a bogus report that 
hallucinated some data.

Unfortunately, in this case its a real (if extremely unlikely to trigger 
in practice) issue.

> Your call whether to drop it or take (this PR also contains several
> patches not related to netmem, I think they shouldn't be dropped?).
> 
> Thanks,
> Olek