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 S1751413AbdLAWCm (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Fri, 1 Dec 2017 17:02:42 -0500
Received: from verein.lst.de ([213.95.11.211]:38341 "EHLO newverein.lst.de"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1750965AbdLAWCl (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Fri, 1 Dec 2017 17:02:41 -0500
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2017 23:02:39 +0100
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
To: Jason Baron <jbaron@akamai.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: waitqueue lockdep annotation
Message-ID: <20171201220239.GA32542@lst.de>
References: <20171130142037.19339-1-hch@lst.de> <20171130125050.1faba3f06fc572846f792f17@linux-foundation.org> <dd769c95-3eea-93a4-9da4-cb0024461a9b@akamai.com> <20171130221126.GA31795@lst.de> <21c34413-d178-fda0-91b2-6ab02c6d5a06@akamai.com> <20171201171102.GA20072@lst.de> <57869c0c-764c-ff99-93cd-8020f8ceea9e@akamai.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <57869c0c-764c-ff99-93cd-8020f8ceea9e@akamai.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 02:00:33PM -0500, Jason Baron wrote:
> You could leave the annotation and do something like:
> s/ep->lock/ep->wq->lock. And then that would remove the ep->lock saving
> a bit of space.

Looks like this isn't going to work due to ep_poll_safewake taking
another waitqueue lock.  If we had a strict lock order it might work,
but the mess in ep_call_nested makes me fear it doesn't.