These are called from blkcg_print_blkgs() which already disables IRQs so
disabling it again is wrong.  It means that IRQs will be enabled slightly
earlier than intended, however, so far as I can see, this bug is harmless.

Fixes: 35198e323001 ("blk-iocost: read params inside lock in sysfs apis")
Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@linaro.org>
---
 block/blk-iocost.c | 8 ++++----
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/block/blk-iocost.c b/block/blk-iocost.c
index 9dc9323f84ac..384aa15e8260 100644
--- a/block/blk-iocost.c
+++ b/block/blk-iocost.c
@@ -3166,7 +3166,7 @@ static u64 ioc_qos_prfill(struct seq_file *sf, struct blkg_policy_data *pd,
 	if (!dname)
 		return 0;
 
-	spin_lock_irq(&ioc->lock);
+	spin_lock(&ioc->lock);
 	seq_printf(sf, "%s enable=%d ctrl=%s rpct=%u.%02u rlat=%u wpct=%u.%02u wlat=%u min=%u.%02u max=%u.%02u\n",
 		   dname, ioc->enabled, ioc->user_qos_params ? "user" : "auto",
 		   ioc->params.qos[QOS_RPPM] / 10000,
@@ -3179,7 +3179,7 @@ static u64 ioc_qos_prfill(struct seq_file *sf, struct blkg_policy_data *pd,
 		   ioc->params.qos[QOS_MIN] % 10000 / 100,
 		   ioc->params.qos[QOS_MAX] / 10000,
 		   ioc->params.qos[QOS_MAX] % 10000 / 100);
-	spin_unlock_irq(&ioc->lock);
+	spin_unlock(&ioc->lock);
 	return 0;
 }
 
@@ -3366,14 +3366,14 @@ static u64 ioc_cost_model_prfill(struct seq_file *sf,
 	if (!dname)
 		return 0;
 
-	spin_lock_irq(&ioc->lock);
+	spin_lock(&ioc->lock);
 	seq_printf(sf, "%s ctrl=%s model=linear "
 		   "rbps=%llu rseqiops=%llu rrandiops=%llu "
 		   "wbps=%llu wseqiops=%llu wrandiops=%llu\n",
 		   dname, ioc->user_cost_model ? "user" : "auto",
 		   u[I_LCOEF_RBPS], u[I_LCOEF_RSEQIOPS], u[I_LCOEF_RRANDIOPS],
 		   u[I_LCOEF_WBPS], u[I_LCOEF_WSEQIOPS], u[I_LCOEF_WRANDIOPS]);
-	spin_unlock_irq(&ioc->lock);
+	spin_unlock(&ioc->lock);
 	return 0;
 }
 
-- 
2.45.2

s/dupicate/duplicate/ in the subject.

Otherwise looks good:

Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>

On Wed, Oct 02, 2024 at 02:04:54AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> s/dupicate/duplicate/ in the subject.
> 
> Otherwise looks good:
> 
> Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>

Thanks.  Let me fix that typo quickly in a v2.

regards,
dan carpenter