From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pavel Tatashin Subject: Re: [net-next 3/6] ixgbe: release lock for the duration of ixgbe_suspend_close() Date: Fri, 18 May 2018 13:35:07 -0400 Message-ID: <9239449c-fcb6-5e0d-83bd-f19bcedb9973@oracle.com> References: <20180517163732.30910-1-jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com> <20180517163732.30910-4-jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com> <9ee4abce-0841-374d-5395-0c5170880eb1@oracle.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, nhorman@redhat.com, sassmann@redhat.com, jogreene@redhat.com To: Sergei Shtylyov , Jeff Kirsher , davem@davemloft.net Return-path: Received: from aserp2120.oracle.com ([141.146.126.78]:40646 "EHLO aserp2120.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751888AbeERRf0 (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 May 2018 13:35:26 -0400 In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 05/18/2018 01:28 PM, Sergei Shtylyov wrote: > On 05/18/2018 02:37 PM, Pavel Tatashin wrote: > >> * parallelized this function, so drop lock for the >>> >>> Parallelizing? Else the sentence doesn't parse for me. :-) > > My comment hardly makes sense when you removed all the context... Hi Sergei, Ah gotcha: + /* Suspend takes a long time, device_shutdown may be + * parallelized this function, so drop lock for the The comment should have been: ixgbe_close_suspend() takes a long time, and device_shutdown may parallelize ixgbe_shutdown(), therefore drop lock to allow concurrent execution of ixgbe_close_suspend(). Anyway, as I said, this patch should be dropped. Thank you, Pavel