> > Looks good from my POV, but will wait for Peter to comment.
> > 
> > If accepted, I'd think this should go via my I2C tree and I would like
> > to ask Linus to ack patch 4. D'accord, everyone?
> 
> Since it is not clear if "Peter" is me or PeterZ (I suspect PeterZ...),

Nope, I meant you :) I really value your input, it especially helps me
on topics like locking, nesting, muxing... etc. Much appreciated, thanks
a lot for doing that!

> I'm just adding that it all looks fine by me as well, just to prevent
> this from being held up by a misunderstanding.

OK. I read this as Acked-by.

> It does unconditionally add a new function to i2c-core that is only
> ever used if lockdep is enabled, but it is tiny and I'm not bothered
> by that memory waste.

Same here. And if it prevents us from false positive lockdep reports, I
am all for fixing it.