[PATCH for-next 6/9] io_uring: don't raw spin unlock to match cq_lock

[Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@gmail.com>]

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.

Signed-off-by: Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@gmail.com>
---
 io_uring/io_uring.c | 2 +-
 io_uring/io_uring.h | 5 +++++
 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/io_uring/io_uring.c b/io_uring/io_uring.c
index 15d285d8ce0f..c30765579a8e 100644
--- 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 062899b1fe86..2277c05f52a6 100644
--- 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,
-- 
2.38.1