From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [198.175.65.20]) (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 05C1F357A4D for ; Wed, 3 Dec 2025 16:20:25 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.175.65.20 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1764778828; cv=none; b=G2SLs4Q7dP9drQbIDvFXfRlc8AncVECcmkI99cUZkJkAsfe3tR29Rdpr+a7okKMb7sjYu7FBWUavgrJJ2RPLzBOSbtrPuaANWcQJ8wnJCsnDdRFwnztbVh9LgVrrGVS26NYJtZn4QAUnHBdd42cZiARWx0EqDpvsZlu297SpR4M= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1764778828; c=relaxed/simple; bh=diPez7Gr+6e0zYI/4QI7wgbyqJDhXwXsw1nFKS8sEnE=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=BLK6W66v3v6ShliAtxBVZgFdcXiA+v+FApnIXPNJCajrb4QOng1hkDOZGAC0rCBD2O5KKLuTIs9Cyp0kfnIOXuksI9A6qOSSMbkqVVTIfWIfbAdS6+1DKHIrpdoaNBOc+JLGNtBu9StbJbdF6Y87FN+o156FcNAGtB1I9igrZZc= 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=eBvjANV3; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.175.65.20 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="eBvjANV3" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1764778826; x=1796314826; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to; bh=diPez7Gr+6e0zYI/4QI7wgbyqJDhXwXsw1nFKS8sEnE=; b=eBvjANV3aOSu8j09zWwZW/LsBI4638mgdX38Cg0hS4z78HIcT12vqg4c T6DltauywKo/8EOijp4L+ym/wSPJPAraa02v6WLcuUusao91nTk3CPmem lT1sMxcI1gi8cTDAf5p0C6JZxosVKXtWUcW3vjTZZ1miZG9J6sK0bAD61 6vPmHNEJuYI6/U1YJvvoB12cl8N7hJxWwDbr/Yy5LRTinDQ3w2rhqHSyi Kyi4RC9KLfZTFm4uEbddYBiyd3ECISyXPyXfL6RoZNdnL9AcEgVinhY+0 TUFcrwGOUvdm7qbd2Wl0YpXZqNUel3m439UrGMgs664CJE7waOe9R4sZg g==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: dcBMmxS5S4OdYKaC/ja60Q== X-CSE-MsgGUID: xKR6Q5ZFSkSkfHnuKJckag== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6800,10657,11631"; a="66499916" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.20,246,1758610800"; d="scan'208";a="66499916" Received: from orviesa002.jf.intel.com ([10.64.159.142]) by orvoesa112.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 03 Dec 2025 08:20:25 -0800 X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: pa4BZQuQQiW2SJZThoe1Nw== X-CSE-MsgGUID: wUuu3qj+TZqw+/l0NO2rtQ== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.20,246,1758610800"; d="scan'208";a="225405096" Received: from dhhellew-desk2.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO localhost) ([10.245.245.81]) by orviesa002-auth.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 03 Dec 2025 08:20:24 -0800 Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2025 18:20:21 +0200 From: Andy Shevchenko To: nuno.sa@analog.com Cc: linux-iio@vger.kernel.org, Jonathan Cameron , David Lechner , Andy Shevchenko Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] iio: buffer-dma: use lockdep instead of WARN() Message-ID: References: <20251203-iio-dmabuf-improvs-v1-0-0e4907ce7322@analog.com> <20251203-iio-dmabuf-improvs-v1-1-0e4907ce7322@analog.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-iio@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20251203-iio-dmabuf-improvs-v1-1-0e4907ce7322@analog.com> Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - c/o Alberga Business Park, 6 krs, Bertel Jungin Aukio 5, 02600 Espoo On Wed, Dec 03, 2025 at 03:11:36PM +0000, Nuno Sá via B4 Relay wrote: > > As documented, WARN() should be used with care given that it can panic > running kernels (depending on command line options). So, instead of > using it to make sure a lock is held, use the annotations we already > have in the kernel for the very same reason. Which also will be a WARN :-) I believe the main value is a bit different here, i.e. to have code being annotated with the existing infrastructure. In any case I support this change Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko