[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200313122210.GB31668@ziepe.ca>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 09:22:10 -0300
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
To: Souptick Joarder <jrdr.linux@...il.com>
Cc: jglisse@...hat.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/hmm.c : Remove additional check for
lockdep_assert_held()
On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 07:41:00AM +0530, Souptick Joarder wrote:
> walk_page_range() already has a check for lockdep_assert_held().
> So additional check for lockdep_assert_held() can be removed from
> hmm_range_fault().
Is there a reason why you think this redundancy is bad?
IMHO it makes it easier to understand the API contract if key top
level APIs have their assumptions coded in lockdep.
Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists