[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220309182217.00006bf5@Huawei.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2022 18:22:17 +0000
From: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>
To: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
CC: <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
"Alison Schofield" <alison.schofield@...el.com>,
Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@...el.com>,
Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>,
Ben Widawsky <ben.widawsky@...el.com>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org>,
<nvdimm@...ts.linux.dev>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/11] cxl/core: Remove cxl_device_lock()
On Mon, 28 Feb 2022 18:49:06 -0800
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com> wrote:
> In preparation for moving lockdep_mutex nested lock acquisition into the
> core, remove the cxl_device_lock() wrapper, but preserve
> cxl_lock_class() that will be used to inform the core of the subsystem's
> lock ordering rules.
>
> Cc: Alison Schofield <alison.schofield@...el.com>
> Cc: Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@...el.com>
> Cc: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>
> Cc: Ben Widawsky <ben.widawsky@...el.com>
> Signed-off-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Makes sense, but perhaps the description should call out that after
this patch it's not just a wrapper remove, but rather the lock
checking is totally gone for now?
Otherwise this looks fine to me. FWIW
Reviewed-by: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists