From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_NEOMUTT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EC0CC43441 for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2018 18:49:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5399C2146D for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2018 18:49:31 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 5399C2146D Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=stgolabs.net Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2388719AbeKPE60 (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Nov 2018 23:58:26 -0500 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:51934 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726453AbeKPE6Z (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Nov 2018 23:58:25 -0500 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay1.suse.de (unknown [195.135.220.254]) by mx1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18833AFD0; Thu, 15 Nov 2018 18:49:27 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 10:49:17 -0800 From: Davidlohr Bueso To: "Paul E. McKenney" Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@kernel.org, jiangshanlai@gmail.com, dipankar@in.ibm.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com, josh@joshtriplett.org, tglx@linutronix.de, peterz@infradead.org, rostedt@goodmis.org, dhowells@redhat.com, edumazet@google.com, fweisbec@gmail.com, oleg@redhat.com, joel@joelfernandes.org, Lance Roy , "Kirill A. Shutemov" , Yang Shi , Matthew Wilcox , Mel Gorman , Jan Kara , Shakeel Butt , linux-mm@kvack.org Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 6/7] mm: Replace spin_is_locked() with lockdep Message-ID: <20181115184917.6goqg67hpojfhk42@linux-r8p5> Mail-Followup-To: "Paul E. McKenney" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@kernel.org, jiangshanlai@gmail.com, dipankar@in.ibm.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com, josh@joshtriplett.org, tglx@linutronix.de, peterz@infradead.org, rostedt@goodmis.org, dhowells@redhat.com, edumazet@google.com, fweisbec@gmail.com, oleg@redhat.com, joel@joelfernandes.org, Lance Roy , "Kirill A. Shutemov" , Yang Shi , Matthew Wilcox , Mel Gorman , Jan Kara , Shakeel Butt , linux-mm@kvack.org References: <20181111200421.GA10551@linux.ibm.com> <20181111200443.10772-6-paulmck@linux.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20181111200443.10772-6-paulmck@linux.ibm.com> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180323 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, 11 Nov 2018, Paul E. McKenney wrote: >From: Lance Roy > >lockdep_assert_held() is better suited to checking locking requirements, >since it only checks if the current thread holds the lock regardless of >whether someone else does. This is also a step towards possibly removing >spin_is_locked(). So fyi I'm not crazy about these kind of patches simply because lockdep is a lot less used out of anything that's not a lab, and we can be missing potential offenders. There's obviously nothing wrong about what you describe above perse, just my two cents. Thansk, Davidlohr