On 7/16/26 7:24 PM, Fan Wu wrote: > Hi Maaz, > > Thanks for the review. I'll drop this reordering — keeping the IRQ alive > for command-buffer processing during teardown is the right call. > > One question before I investigate further: is there an existing teardown > invariant that guarantees an already-woken, but not yet run, CMDBUF or > FENCE threaded handler (vmw_thread_fn) cannot remain pending once cman or > fman teardown begins? If there is, I may well be chasing a non-issue, and > I'd rather not propose an alternative that fights an invariant I'm missing. > > I'll re-check whether such a handler can outlive the current destroy > sequence before suggesting anything further. > > Best, > Fan Wu >
You can drop this, the current teardown sequence processes things in the correct order workqueue -> thread_fn -> irq. -- Maaz Mombasawala <[email protected]>
