On Sun, Feb 12, 2023 at 05:06:09PM +0000, Conor Dooley wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 12, 2023 at 04:33:58PM +0000, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 12, 2023 at 03:59:59PM +0000, Conor Dooley wrote:
> 
> So as not to lead anyone up the garden path, let me correct myself:
> 
> > Hmm, so this appears to be us attempting to patch in alternatives where
> > none actually exists - seemingly F & D.
> 
> And of course that's not true, riscv_has_extension_likely() now uses
> alternatives as of:
> bdda5d554e43 ("riscv: introduce riscv_has_extension_[un]likely()")
> 
> From a quick look, it just happens that the only users are F & D.
> 

Samuel pointed out that this is a lockdep splat on irc.
There's a patch on the list that removes the lockdep annotation
entirely:
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-riscv/patch/20230202114116.3695793-1-changbin.du@huawei.com/

So ye, no surprises that it was config based!

Palmer posted a "better" fix for that lockdep warning a while ago:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220322022331.32136-1-palmer@rivosinc.com/

So we'd have to duplicate/reuse that for cpufeature/errata patching.