From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from 011.lax.mailroute.net (011.lax.mailroute.net [199.89.1.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A37DD30E858 for ; Fri, 6 Mar 2026 14:11:11 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=199.89.1.14 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1772806272; cv=none; b=F5FS1dPAoTio3INi62iXYZNfab6Q/lXsr6TtroLPvL9lH/RbcM0Bu9G9vasRK10W0tmLfxWylZ6+OGNVBlMYK5vv4NltTBc2syKiCrvtioiCsCpaGhvRilrBzLeCpOvc7PtRqgqZnEH8SFlJreERTapmwrlSFIqqLF1beFvJ5lU= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1772806272; c=relaxed/simple; bh=TZDTyUP/OWJM0C4I/rZxQy/PouTuxpTXK+v2jl0Q5VA=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=jjlDJYUI9DaGFEJENFS7lmNpLDeddPibH0zislQJRV9GMjQr3ZdhOj+3D2QQ+qqDNpTk7YF1qN8u8Olnt2RgtUKvua1id0TRBpxZStNk/5mhrnPj6RJp3oSdVBzsWJhoRwdjMrpNOBzXfB0wumpqBJjDiBtGCpTBbZtqqY+EYv8= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=acm.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=acm.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=acm.org header.i=@acm.org header.b=y9vUTXkk; arc=none smtp.client-ip=199.89.1.14 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=acm.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=acm.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=acm.org header.i=@acm.org header.b="y9vUTXkk" Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by 011.lax.mailroute.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4fS7cH0hd4z1XLyjF; Fri, 6 Mar 2026 14:11:11 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=acm.org; h= content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type:in-reply-to :from:from:content-language:references:subject:subject :user-agent:mime-version:date:date:message-id:received:received; s=mr01; t=1772806266; x=1775398267; bh=6m2ihEtaInK8g8aivIX/90kM lyC7t8007nV7nqLP3J8=; b=y9vUTXkkJAC0/POKUpDMAVn0VTClS9ZYbQ+YT0DJ +Y/W6jNDyDW9z9HfG82RhT9ORYViF5dKSojm8E3KdT0QYEX4yGTvWFmW7Y5ofTSs P4iRBcurA83h0joZYFGXPW6clYbbT5RfN1aI5duUS59rzy5Z30e4FsiObTlX7jmI iHynRCWIPMvZ/LyzCOgQoncw64YULgOTEK+79+fMFqyZvKrIiBfei9oHs3RiUGbc Tk9wDXZ5YoTJY4HwpMP8I6a5HxQJN5aFdU/iyRGWlbyb0WFZUPoP2wgsa3hbT87g DGfecmx7+jI2uooisOIDyhIUM+voFQPjHY1ilUeFdIDcTQ== X-Virus-Scanned: by MailRoute Received: from 011.lax.mailroute.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (011.lax [127.0.0.1]) (mroute_mailscanner, port 10029) with LMTP id UJMQmVM-kA3e; Fri, 6 Mar 2026 14:11:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.132.187] (unknown [12.150.89.26]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: bvanassche@acm.org) by 011.lax.mailroute.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4fS7c81ZW2z1XM6JT; Fri, 6 Mar 2026 14:11:03 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <255978c9-1cb3-4fa5-bb91-c07c6ee7a498@acm.org> Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2026 08:11:02 -0600 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-block@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/14] rnbd: Add more lock context annotations To: Marco Elver Cc: Jens Axboe , Christoph Hellwig , Damien Le Moal , linux-block@vger.kernel.org, "Md. Haris Iqbal" , Jack Wang , Nathan Chancellor References: <20260304194843.760669-1-bvanassche@acm.org> <20260304194843.760669-11-bvanassche@acm.org> Content-Language: en-US From: Bart Van Assche In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 3/6/26 7:09 AM, Marco Elver wrote: > On Wed, 4 Mar 2026 at 20:49, Bart Van Assche wrote: >> >> Prepare for enabling lock context analysis by adding the lock context >> annotations required by Clang. >> >> Signed-off-by: Bart Van Assche >> --- >> drivers/block/rnbd/rnbd-clt.c | 2 ++ >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/block/rnbd/rnbd-clt.c b/drivers/block/rnbd/rnbd-clt.c >> index 4d6725a0035e..7f0f29b8e75a 100644 >> --- a/drivers/block/rnbd/rnbd-clt.c >> +++ b/drivers/block/rnbd/rnbd-clt.c >> @@ -833,6 +833,7 @@ static int wait_for_rtrs_connection(struct rnbd_clt_session *sess) >> static void wait_for_rtrs_disconnection(struct rnbd_clt_session *sess) >> __releases(&sess_lock) >> __acquires(&sess_lock) >> + __must_hold(sess_lock) >> { >> DEFINE_WAIT(wait); >> >> @@ -855,6 +856,7 @@ static void wait_for_rtrs_disconnection(struct rnbd_clt_session *sess) >> static struct rnbd_clt_session *__find_and_get_sess(const char *sessname) >> __releases(&sess_lock) >> __acquires(&sess_lock) >> + __must_hold(sess_lock) >> { >> struct rnbd_clt_session *sess, *sn; >> int err; > > This has all 3: __releases, __acquires, __must_hold. Only either > __releases + __acquires OR __must_hold is sufficient. __must_hold > implies that the lock must be both held on entry and exit - if that > lock is released and re-acquired within the function is irrelevant. > For documentation purposes it might be that one or the other is > clearer (e.g. I've used both __release+__acquires in some cases where > I felt it's clearer). Let's not make more changes than strictly necessary. I will drop this patch. Thanks, Bart.