On Thu, 2019-08-01 at 16:43 +0000, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 01, 2019 at 12:40:43PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
> 
> > > It does have a lock though, the caller holds it, hence the request
> > > for
> > > the lockdep.
> > 
> > You're right, although I think the lockdep annotation can be a
> > separate
> > patch as it's neeeded on more than just the function this patch
> > touches.
> 
> Why? This relies on that lock, so it should have the
> lockdep_assert_held assert.

It does, but this patch is about the scheduling while atomic, adding a
lockdep assertion fix is doubling up on fixes in the patch.  A separate
patch that addes the lockdep assert to both the bind and unbind calls
makes more sense and just feels cleaner to me.

> If there are more functions with implicit locking theyt they can be
> fixed separately...

-- 
Doug Ledford <dledford@redhat.com>
    GPG KeyID: B826A3330E572FDD
    Fingerprint = AE6B 1BDA 122B 23B4 265B  1274 B826 A333 0E57 2FDD