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 S1753686AbdIDLnC (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Mon, 4 Sep 2017 07:43:02 -0400
Received: from merlin.infradead.org ([205.233.59.134]:44006 "EHLO
        merlin.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1753477AbdIDLnB (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Mon, 4 Sep 2017 07:43:01 -0400
Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2017 13:42:48 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>
Cc: Byungchul Park <max.byungchul.park@gmail.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>, david@fromorbit.com,
        Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>, oleg@redhat.com,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        kernel-team@lge.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] lockdep: Fix workqueue crossrelease annotation
Message-ID: <20170904114248.kls4jv2ggsv46mli@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20170831080442.5vdgoaijzmrc776x@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20170831081501.GJ3240@X58A-UD3R>
 <20170831083453.5tfjofzk7idthsof@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20170901020512.GK3240@X58A-UD3R>
 <20170901094747.iv6s532ccuuzpry2@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20170901101629.GL3240@X58A-UD3R>
 <20170901123856.p2trpebau57yxftc@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <CANrsvRMc4QXnRFpYY1m7X+WU52WrC7HvvhbvAUqTWQTx2Py6bQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20170901163852.ckslrgldsalqmg3c@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20170904013031.GM3240@X58A-UD3R>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170904013031.GM3240@X58A-UD3R>
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 Mon, Sep 04, 2017 at 10:30:32AM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 06:38:52PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > And get tangled up with the workqueue annotation again, no thanks.
> > Having the first few works see the thread setup isn't worth it.
> > 
> > And your work_id annotation had the same problem.
> 
> I keep asking you for an example because I really understand you.
> 
>    Fix my problematic example with your patches,
> 
>    or,
> 
>    Show me a problematic scenario with my original code, you expect.
> 
> Whatever, it would be helpful to understand you.

I _really_ don't understand what you're worried about. Is it the kthread
create and workqueue init or the pool->lock that is released/acquired in
process_one_work()?