Hi Alex, > I'm not a fan of dropping the mutex while we go through > ixgbe_close_suspend. I'm concerned it will result in us having a > number of races on shutdown.
I would agree, but ixgbe_close_suspend() is already called without this mutex from ixgbe_close(). This path is executed also during machine shutdown but when kexec'ed. So, it is either an existing bug or there are no races. But, because ixgbe_close() is called from the userland, and a little earlier than ixgbe_shutdown() I think this means there are no races. > If anything, I think we would need to find a replacement for the mutex > that can operate at the per-netdev level if you are wanting to > parallelize this. Yes, if lock is necessary, it can be replaced in this place (and added to ixgbe_close()) with something scalable. Thank you, Pavel
