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 457DD329E6A for ; Wed, 27 May 2026 18:54:32 +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=1779908076; cv=none; b=i0naON9gadSWOdUh83iy4I1k3W18qo+A+eUL+zO9Oz6jO4H7RWxOcSqsZBJ/8dR9YYMp+LqzP/zPcj1cVMELE0zJ2yI+j4aWAZLFQ63WimH+FY3LEKMqSRVFPZcKC1ZNUTjpsBX/YJYJ5vJ9kxsmggdJLJxOyL+NOY63pfQ87pU= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1779908076; c=relaxed/simple; bh=OvDNvJlmBESXFS3MsHlUutW09QwToLRNb5KBIQJxLcI=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=nlmQ8vj2hshqNrqVD5YLok45QMWP2ea+8yKEkji1ibA4dY4rdn1eps/ydUrgY50TbC6B/PKPibNGU+fZzCCKJwPLqWY9G/ORap/IS1Y5Jng29z07v9X2+Kpz+U8RN+OTUv+xjkIbwak0Xk6EuXXq3SR2DrjRiXdSN5TXmStZnu8= 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=INfcy7id; 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="INfcy7id" Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by 011.lax.mailroute.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4gQf1M1kvnz1XM0ny; Wed, 27 May 2026 18:54:31 +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=1779908067; x=1782500068; bh=WMsSoy5zvNQkjmVtyRqiVRWV RgPUgGjAygwqOGNbUvA=; b=INfcy7idhLuqmdU1rUTV0VnEjLPQu2oMuBk8MFcO ZZ28bEI9xSgRdUdjWwolRrQZucfzPN6SskyX3stxMQFs7LHp7nkITUI/HcS0TT7l JU9sOZMzmPxLlo60cxJ5Nm7B/KIN4ghQq1Qhu0xrkhLu+nX8qkGb2TYEAhNWqST7 RScmBhrw3gmSC2qIeVcvwaPa0eKoS4TzXXwKwoM85/DgMllkwiRFeKcYJUSngYjz O3yPoH5eck13JMu8ljI1131Us1zJtUnsBj4MnoeaVvObvdlSR9fbMRtPE4YsYvJE ++IA/gpxbQSWksK6G3hUb+JrRL80XunZqYZWEJDrsfSWGg== 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 DoFq1amOJwt3; Wed, 27 May 2026 18:54:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [100.119.48.131] (unknown [104.135.180.219]) (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 4gQf1F555hz1XM0nl; Wed, 27 May 2026 18:54:25 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 27 May 2026 11:54:24 -0700 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 9/9] ata: Annotate the code that uses the host lock To: Damien Le Moal , Niklas Cassel Cc: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, Marco Elver , Mikael Pettersson , Geert Uytterhoeven , Magnus Damm References: <20260521173347.2079560-1-bvanassche@acm.org> <20260521173347.2079560-10-bvanassche@acm.org> <28915fc8-f2a1-4372-9f09-25f638585e0c@kernel.org> Content-Language: en-US From: Bart Van Assche In-Reply-To: <28915fc8-f2a1-4372-9f09-25f638585e0c@kernel.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 5/27/26 11:51 AM, Damien Le Moal wrote: > On 2026/05/22 2:33, Bart Van Assche wrote: >> Annotate all functions and also their direct and indirect callers with >> __must_hold() that have a lockdep_assert_held() statement in their >> function body for the host lock. As one can see in the comments added by >> this patch, locking is missing from the following two functions: >> * Some of the ata_port_freeze() callers. >> * nv_do_interrupt(). > > What do you mean with locking is missing ? Do you mean we have locking problems > and bugs ? Clarify please. Yes. It means that there is a call chain from the code where I wrote that locking is missing to a lockdep_assert_held() statement for that particular synchronization object. Bart.