From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>
To: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>
Cc: Joerg Roedel <jroedel@suse.de>,
Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>,
iommu@lists.linux.dev, Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>,
linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>,
Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@intel.com>,
Chen-Yu Tsai <wenst@chromium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] Fix device_lock deadlock on two probe() paths
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2023 16:19:37 -0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZN/ESR+3pchFRB9g@nvidia.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <b31c4b66-9543-a827-9404-227d3fafe22f@arm.com>
On Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 07:50:18PM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote:
> > There is a difference between knowingly introducing new lockdep warnings
> > into upstream and letting warnings discovered upstream rot for a while.
>
> Furthermore I'd say it's one thing to have deadlocks or warnings slip in as
> part of some functional change, but quite another when the change is solely
> reworking the locking in an attempt to make it better. This is clearly not
> better.
Exactly what isn't better? We now print a warning when pre-existing
locking rules are violated. That is the only issue here.
Jason
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-08-18 19:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <CGME20230809144403eucas1p1345aec6ec34440f1794594426e0402ab@eucas1p1.samsung.com>
2023-08-09 14:43 ` [PATCH v2 0/4] Fix device_lock deadlock on two probe() paths Jason Gunthorpe
2023-08-09 14:43 ` [PATCH v2 1/4] iommu: Provide iommu_probe_device_locked() Jason Gunthorpe
2023-08-09 14:43 ` [PATCH v2 2/4] iommu: Pass in the iommu_device to probe for in bus_iommu_probe() Jason Gunthorpe
2023-08-09 14:43 ` [PATCH v2 3/4] iommu: Do not attempt to re-lock the iommu device when probing Jason Gunthorpe
2023-08-10 2:37 ` Tian, Kevin
2023-08-09 14:43 ` [PATCH v2 4/4] iommu: dev->iommu->iommu_dev must be set before ops->device_group() Jason Gunthorpe
2023-08-10 2:37 ` Tian, Kevin
2023-08-09 15:49 ` [PATCH v2 0/4] Fix device_lock deadlock on two probe() paths Joerg Roedel
2023-08-09 15:55 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2023-08-10 16:15 ` Jeffrey Hugo
2023-08-17 8:31 ` Marek Szyprowski
2023-08-17 18:33 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2023-08-18 15:56 ` Joerg Roedel
2023-08-18 16:06 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2023-08-18 18:00 ` Eric Farman
2023-08-18 18:15 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2023-08-18 18:32 ` Eric Farman
2023-08-18 18:24 ` Joerg Roedel
2023-08-18 18:50 ` Robin Murphy
2023-08-18 19:19 ` Jason Gunthorpe [this message]
2023-08-21 11:35 ` Robin Murphy
2023-08-18 19:18 ` Jason Gunthorpe
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=ZN/ESR+3pchFRB9g@nvidia.com \
--to=jgg@nvidia.com \
--cc=baolu.lu@linux.intel.com \
--cc=iommu@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=joro@8bytes.org \
--cc=jroedel@suse.de \
--cc=kevin.tian@intel.com \
--cc=lenb@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=m.szyprowski@samsung.com \
--cc=rafael@kernel.org \
--cc=robin.murphy@arm.com \
--cc=wenst@chromium.org \
--cc=will@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.