On 8/26/25 21:21, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Thu, Aug 14, 2025 at 11:08:57AM +0530, Abhijit Gangurde wrote:+static int ionic_poll_vcq_cq(struct ionic_ibdev *dev, + struct ionic_cq *cq, + int nwc, struct ib_wc *wc) +{ + struct ionic_qp *qp, *qp_next; + struct ionic_v1_cqe *cqe; + int rc = 0, npolled = 0; + unsigned long irqflags; + u32 qtf, qid; + bool peek; + u8 type; + + if (nwc < 1) + return 0; + + spin_lock_irqsave(&cq->lock, irqflags); + + /* poll already indicated work completions for send queue */ + list_for_each_entry_safe(qp, qp_next, &cq->poll_sq, cq_poll_sq) { + if (npolled == nwc) + goto out; + + spin_lock(&qp->sq_lock); + rc = ionic_poll_send_many(dev, cq, qp, wc + npolled, + nwc - npolled); + spin_unlock(&qp->sq_lock); + + if (rc > 0) + npolled += rc; + + if (npolled < nwc) + list_del_init(&qp->cq_poll_sq); + } + + /* poll for more work completions */ + while (likely(ionic_next_cqe(dev, cq, &cqe))) { + if (npolled == nwc) + goto out; + + qtf = ionic_v1_cqe_qtf(cqe); + qid = ionic_v1_cqe_qtf_qid(qtf); + type = ionic_v1_cqe_qtf_type(qtf); + + qp = xa_load(&dev->qp_tbl, qid);Why is this safe? Should have a comment explaining it or add the missing locking. Jason
This is safe because both the polling and ionic_destroy_qp() paths synchronize on the same cq->lock. The destroy path ensures the CQ is cleaned before its associated resources are freed. I will add a comment to clarify this.
Thanks, Abhijit
