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 19:19 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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox