linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 03/11] cxl/core: Remove cxl_device

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 9 Mar 2022 19:54:17 -0800
From:   Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
To:     Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>
Cc:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Rafael J Wysocki <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 Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org, Linux NVDIMM <nvdimm@...ts.linux.dev>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/11] cxl/core: Remove cxl_device_lock()

On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 10:22 AM Jonathan Cameron
<Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com> wrote:
>
> 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?

Sure, that's worth a note.

>
> Otherwise this looks fine to me. FWIW
> Reviewed-by: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>