From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [192.198.163.7]) (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 F3E6C272811; Tue, 21 Oct 2025 23:33:13 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=192.198.163.7 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1761089595; cv=none; b=IBWEmbhIR2frO5qTMvmm6btcoYjICEiBt9Z9Dx+XGHVWCUIisb8elrNdqAUdbv1NyOEjDr8AJ2nNXSMbtOBeVhzA51aZiPkW1vFCwlLSYX15YYIB/ZdzQ0RsrFh56rwh3V9cbCYayGQ8qCCBZApcGOTx1IC58rynkvW/7wsYVWI= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1761089595; c=relaxed/simple; bh=AJaVbX4mgWucjzYIHmh9A+dLYHj2n5htJHv7lvWxxGE=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=dwppBgTIRieXYJlwWRtq6E7XBh1wqS/M61Kb06mtyvsbyucNyC+REQYnbOLNZ0wUJR/R81r992F2YjYFuHWCtXPw8HUtIRBgS+n1ZwBZTFkGCaJA1syfU1kvjF00lXzyDMGAVYi7abINDVEce2QLplmwYsi5O/3rGR1YqOzNMMo= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=intel.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=intel.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b=mXfgdhU6; arc=none smtp.client-ip=192.198.163.7 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b="mXfgdhU6" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1761089594; x=1792625594; h=from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:date: message-id:mime-version; bh=AJaVbX4mgWucjzYIHmh9A+dLYHj2n5htJHv7lvWxxGE=; b=mXfgdhU6yPCDi9L345+1N9AHeaNnQV4p1SNu4JQNzdN0VtWKLH5PlX/V y5rB6EkVFHXHDhA12Dw2dHGcg/zBV0mmczSXLog6rlmRlyyJif4jLlEtn MbZWtXBs4AQQjQPCilVTIrChad5NUPmJjUZe5k/tZVsJ0QIP3Lx0EiutI vuXH5aqAVQgbAdVzaMRO1ingH5xxaR0+pJH3W5hkxBmUmWdMl6NY7i+ZQ IaNTxib9z/r1ICALvsigSz7s5lHJD/4oaeefsPKeQz6x1t2kFc+RcqSBv +sOyM2BIZYDStmUCTFYHVpgZt1hvEL+pfIFnLKs4Bsjo2fUhgZcj0oU8+ w==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: i/gPhJ2jRrOD4pwEMSmgsw== X-CSE-MsgGUID: p/leEhOsRU2FJwxsTljItw== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6800,10657,11586"; a="88696284" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.19,246,1754982000"; d="scan'208";a="88696284" Received: from orviesa001.jf.intel.com ([10.64.159.141]) by fmvoesa101.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 21 Oct 2025 16:33:13 -0700 X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: 4Yop0g7DQdaZFeD19mD7AQ== X-CSE-MsgGUID: ZWWD1EG+Qke9lWgDIjslQg== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.19,246,1754982000"; d="scan'208";a="220895849" Received: from vcostago-desk1.jf.intel.com (HELO vcostago-desk1) ([10.88.27.140]) by smtpauth.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 21 Oct 2025 16:33:14 -0700 From: Vinicius Costa Gomes To: Dave Hansen , Dave Jiang , Vinod Koul , Fenghua Yu , Dan Williams Cc: dmaengine@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 01/10] dmaengine: idxd: Fix lockdep warnings when calling idxd_device_config() In-Reply-To: References: <20250821-idxd-fix-flr-on-kernel-queues-v3-v2-0-595d48fa065c@intel.com> <20250821-idxd-fix-flr-on-kernel-queues-v3-v2-1-595d48fa065c@intel.com> Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2025 16:33:26 -0700 Message-ID: <878qh3keyh.fsf@intel.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: dmaengine@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Hi, Dave Hansen writes: > On 8/21/25 15:59, Vinicius Costa Gomes wrote: >> Move the check for IDXD_FLAG_CONFIGURABLE and the locking to "inside" >> idxd_device_config(), as this is common to all callers, and the one >> that wasn't holding the lock was an error (that was causing the >> lockdep warning). > > What is "the lockdep error"? I don't see any details about an error in > the changelog here or the cover letter? I should have added the lockdep splat here, idxd_reset_done() is calling idxd_device_config() without holding the lock, and the lockdep assert inside idxd_device_config() complains about that. I thought the commit message ("one wasn't holding") and the code would be clear enough. In case of a another version the series, I will add the information here. Cheers, -- Vinicius