From: Lance Roy <ldr709@gmail.com>
To: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
x86@kernel.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/16] x86/PCI: Replace spin_is_locked() with lockdep
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 23:50:11 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181004065011.GC896@E570.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20181003160051.GF120535@bhelgaas-glaptop.roam.corp.google.com>
On Wed, Oct 03, 2018 at 11:00:51AM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 02, 2018 at 10:38:47PM -0700, Lance Roy wrote:
> > lockdep_assert_held() is better suited to checking locking requirements,
> > since it won't get confused when someone else holds the lock. This is
> > also a step towards possibly removing spin_is_locked().
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Lance Roy <ldr709@gmail.com>
> > Cc: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>
> > Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
> > Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
> > Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
> > Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
> > Cc: <x86@kernel.org>
> > Cc: <linux-pci@vger.kernel.org>
>
> I assume you plan to merge the whole series together. I don't object
> to that, but I don't know enough to be able to formally ack this.
>
> It would be useful to include a tiny bit more detail in the changelog.
> The spin_is_locked() documentation doesn't mention anything about
> differences with respect to the lock being held by self vs by someone
> else, so I can't tell where the confusion arises.
The difference is that spin_is_locked() will return true when someone else holds
the lock, while lockdep_assert_held() asserts that the current thread holds the
lock. How about the following for an new changelog?
lockdep_assert_held() is better suited to checking locking requirements,
since it only checks if the current thread holds the lock regardless of
whether someone else does. This is also a step towards possibly removing
spin_is_locked().
Thanks,
Lance
> Bjorn
>
> > ---
> > arch/x86/pci/i386.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/pci/i386.c b/arch/x86/pci/i386.c
> > index ed4ac215305d..24bb58a007de 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/pci/i386.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/pci/i386.c
> > @@ -59,7 +59,7 @@ static struct pcibios_fwaddrmap *pcibios_fwaddrmap_lookup(struct pci_dev *dev)
> > {
> > struct pcibios_fwaddrmap *map;
> >
> > - WARN_ON_SMP(!spin_is_locked(&pcibios_fwaddrmap_lock));
> > + lockdep_assert_held(&pcibios_fwaddrmap_lock);
> >
> > list_for_each_entry(map, &pcibios_fwaddrmappings, list)
> > if (map->dev == dev)
> > --
> > 2.19.0
> >
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-10-04 6:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 43+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-10-03 5:38 Using lockdep instead of spin_is_locked() Lance Roy
2018-10-03 5:38 ` [PATCH 01/16] x86/PCI: Replace spin_is_locked() with lockdep Lance Roy
2018-10-03 16:00 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2018-10-04 6:50 ` Lance Roy [this message]
2018-10-03 5:38 ` [PATCH 02/16] hv_balloon: " Lance Roy
2018-10-03 13:20 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov
2018-10-03 5:38 ` [PATCH 03/16] sgi-xp: " Lance Roy
2018-10-03 5:38 ` [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH 04/16] i40e: " Lance Roy
2018-10-03 5:38 ` Lance Roy
2018-10-04 18:24 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Bowers, AndrewX
2018-10-04 18:56 ` Bowers, AndrewX
2018-10-03 5:38 ` [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH 05/16] igbvf: " Lance Roy
2018-10-03 5:38 ` Lance Roy
2018-10-13 0:11 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Brown, Aaron F
2018-10-13 0:11 ` Brown, Aaron F
2018-10-03 5:38 ` [PATCH 06/16] sfc: " Lance Roy
2018-10-03 5:38 ` [PATCH 07/16] smsc: " Lance Roy
2018-10-03 5:38 ` [PATCH 08/16] wireless: " Lance Roy
2018-10-03 9:06 ` Kalle Valo
2018-10-04 6:57 ` Lance Roy
2018-10-04 10:05 ` Kalle Valo
2018-10-05 8:35 ` [PATCH 08/16] zd1211rw: " Kalle Valo
2018-10-03 5:38 ` [PATCH 09/16] scsi: " Lance Roy
2018-10-03 13:53 ` Bart Van Assche
2018-10-11 2:37 ` Martin K. Petersen
2018-10-03 5:38 ` [PATCH 10/16] userfaultfd: " Lance Roy
2018-10-03 5:38 ` [PATCH 11/16] futex: " Lance Roy
2018-10-09 11:21 ` [tip:locking/core] " tip-bot for Lance Roy
2018-10-03 5:38 ` [PATCH 12/16] locking/mutex: " Lance Roy
2018-10-09 12:18 ` Will Deacon
2018-10-09 13:36 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-10-03 5:38 ` [PATCH 13/16] mm: " Lance Roy
2018-10-03 7:37 ` Vlastimil Babka
2018-10-03 5:39 ` [PATCH 14/16] netfilter: " Lance Roy
2018-10-03 8:29 ` Jozsef Kadlecsik
2018-10-03 5:39 ` [PATCH 15/16] apparmor: " Lance Roy
2018-10-03 5:56 ` John Johansen
2018-10-03 5:39 ` [PATCH 16/16] KVM: arm/arm64: vgic: " Lance Roy
2018-10-03 5:39 ` Lance Roy
2018-11-02 18:45 ` Christoffer Dall
2018-11-02 18:45 ` Christoffer Dall
2018-11-02 19:42 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-11-02 19:42 ` Paul E. McKenney
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20181004065011.GC896@E570.localdomain \
--to=ldr709@gmail.com \
--cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=helgaas@kernel.org \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=paulmck@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.