[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220425103307.GI2731@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2022 12:33:07 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Cc: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>, linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
Alison Schofield <alison.schofield@...el.com>,
Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@...el.com>,
Ben Widawsky <ben.widawsky@...el.com>,
Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>,
Linux NVDIMM <nvdimm@...ts.linux.dev>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/8] cxl/acpi: Add root device lockdep validation
On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 10:27:52AM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> ...so I'm going to drop it and just add a comment about the
> expectations. As Peter said there's already a multitude of ways to
> cause false positive / negative results with lockdep so this is just
> one more area where one needs to be careful and understand the lock
> context they might be overriding.
One safe-guard might be to check the class you're overriding is indeed
__no_validate__, and WARN if not. Then the unconditional reset is
conistent.
Then, if/when, that WARN ever triggers you can revisit all this.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists