On Mon, Dec 22, 2025, at 17:23, Lorenz Bauer wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 22, 2025 at 5:13 PM Arnd Bergmann <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 22, 2025, at 17:04, Lorenz Bauer wrote:
>> > @@ -1705,6 +1713,10 @@ static void out_intr(struct virtqueue *vq)
>> > return;
>> > }
>> >
>> > + spin_lock_irqsave(&port->outvq_lock, flags);
>> > + reclaim_consumed_buffers(port);
>> > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&port->outvq_lock, flags);
>> > +
>> > wake_up_interruptible(&port->waitqueue);
>>
>> The callback seems to always be called with interrupts
>> disabled(), so here it's safe to use spin_lock() instead
>> of spin_lock_irqsave().
>
> This is pretty much just copied from in_intr which also uses _irqsave.
> I think it makes sense to stick to that for consistency's sake. What
> do you think?
The usual rule is that you must use spin_lock_irqsave() if
the function can be called from either interrupt or non-interrupt
context. It's also safe to be used if you are not sure.
However, in interrupt handlers you usually want to use the
plain spin_lock() both for efficiency reasons and to document
the calling conventions.
Arnd
