From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1751752AbdHaIII (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Thu, 31 Aug 2017 04:08:08 -0400
Received: from merlin.infradead.org ([205.233.59.134]:36114 "EHLO
        merlin.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1751514AbdHaIIF (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Thu, 31 Aug 2017 04:08:05 -0400
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 10:07:58 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>
Cc: mingo@kernel.org, tj@kernel.org, boqun.feng@gmail.com,
        david@fromorbit.com, johannes@sipsolutions.net, oleg@redhat.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@lge.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] lockdep: Fix workqueue crossrelease annotation
Message-ID: <20170831080758.kludd4sn3zns6imd@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20170824021840.GC6772@X58A-UD3R>
 <20170824140240.t4imrpvussebfimm@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20170825011114.GA3858@X58A-UD3R>
 <20170829085939.ggmb6xiohw67micb@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20170830020953.GE3240@X58A-UD3R>
 <20170830074117.GG3240@X58A-UD3R>
 <20170830085333.GM32112@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <004601d3216e$a3702030$ea506090$@lge.com>
 <20170830091223.xxnh3podtcumlabm@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <004701d32171$ce57d4c0$6b077e40$@lge.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <004701d32171$ce57d4c0$6b077e40$@lge.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170609 (1.8.3)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 06:24:39PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> > And there obviously _should_ not be any dependencies between those. A
> 
> 100% right. Since there obviously should not be any, it would be better
> to check them. So I've endlessly asked you 'do you have any reason removing
> the opportunity for that check?'. Overhead? Logical problem? Or want to
> believe workqueue setup code perfect forever? I mean, is it a problem if we
> check them?

Nothing is perfect. And cross-release less that others. Covering that
case for the first few works really isn't worth it.