io_uring: don't raw spin unlock to match cq_lock

There is one newly added place when we lock ring with io_cq_lock() but
unlocking is hand coded calling spin_unlock directly. It's ugly and
troublesome in the long run. Make it consistent with the other completion
locking.

Signed-off-by: Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@gmail.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/4ca4f0564492b90214a190cd5b2a6c76522de138.1669821213.git.asml.silence@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>

diff --git a/io_uring/io_uring.c b/io_uring/io_uring.c
index 15d285d8ce0f7c62d84a5a6c321c2cb4036ae902..c30765579a8e1fc7523b464780145d7684c72102 100644 (file)
--- a/io_uring/io_uring.c
+++ b/io_uring/io_uring.c
@@ -860,7 +860,7 @@ bool io_aux_cqe(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx, bool defer, u64 user_data, s32 res, u32
                io_cq_lock(ctx);
                __io_flush_post_cqes(ctx);
                /* no need to flush - flush is deferred */
-               spin_unlock(&ctx->completion_lock);
+               io_cq_unlock(ctx);
        }
 
        /* For defered completions this is not as strict as it is otherwise,

diff --git a/io_uring/io_uring.h b/io_uring/io_uring.h
index 062899b1fe8609f85eab0fcd8b52f7155ddfe402..2277c05f52a6122c25df159cad49ba80d7bf525c 100644 (file)
--- a/io_uring/io_uring.h
+++ b/io_uring/io_uring.h
@@ -93,6 +93,11 @@ static inline void io_cq_lock(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx)
        spin_lock(&ctx->completion_lock);
 }
 
+static inline void io_cq_unlock(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx)
+{
+       spin_unlock(&ctx->completion_lock);
+}
+
 void io_cq_unlock_post(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx);
 
 static inline struct io_uring_cqe *io_get_cqe_overflow(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx,