[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Za5pOIkQ0SN2XzHr@hovoldconsulting.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2024 14:10:16 +0100
From: Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>
To: Kalle Valo <kvalo@...nel.org>
Cc: Johan Hovold <johan+linaro@...nel.org>,
Jeff Johnson <quic_jjohnson@...cinc.com>,
ath11k@...ts.infradead.org, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: ath11k: checking RCU usage
Hi Kalle,
On Sat, Jan 13, 2024 at 12:26:53PM +0200, Kalle Valo wrote:
> (old discussion, changing title)
>
> Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org> writes:
>
> > On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 05:07:38PM +0300, Kalle Valo wrote:
> >> Thanks for the fixes. I really like using lockdep_assert_held() to
> >> document if a function requires some lock held, is there anything
> >> similar for RCU?
> >
> > Not really, but the checking is instead built into the primitives like
> > rcu_dereference() and enabled whenever CONFIG_PROVE_RCU is set.
> >
> > For some special cases, we have open-coded checks like:
> >
> > RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(!rcu_read_lock_held());
> >
> > which similarly depend on CONFIG_PROVE_RCU or simply
> >
> > WARN_ON_ONCE(!rcu_read_lock_held());
>
> I just found out that sparse has __must_hold():
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-wireless/87sf31hhfp.fsf@kernel.org/
>
> That looks promising, should we start using that in ath11k and ath12k to
> check our RCU usage?
I see that Johannes already commented on this in the thread above.
I'm pretty sure smatch can't be used for this.
Johan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists