From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2018 17:04:39 +0200 From: Peter Zijlstra To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Davidlohr Bueso , Ingo Molnar , Andrew Morton , Al Viro , Andrea Arcangeli , Mike Rapoport , Jason Baron , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: waitqueue lockdep annotation V3 Message-ID: <20180717150439.GY2476@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <20171214152344.6880-1-hch@lst.de> <20180712191753.fvk2qersdvhcoqzp@linux-r8p5> <20180717142437.GA20286@lst.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180717142437.GA20286@lst.de> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 04:24:37PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 12:17:53PM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote: > > On Thu, 14 Dec 2017, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > >> Hi all, > >> > >> this series adds a strategic lockdep_assert_held to __wake_up_common > >> to ensure callers really do hold the wait_queue_head lock when calling > >> the unlocked wake_up variants. It turns out epoll did not do this > >> for a fairly common path (hit all the time by systemd during bootup), > >> so the second patch fixed this instance as well. > > > > I ran into these changes because of patch 1 getting rid of ep->lock. Is > > there any reason why this series was never picked up? > > I'd love to see this merged, but I never heard back about it. Seeing how it touched fs bits, I was expecting this to go through the vfs tree; was that not the intended target?