From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: bvanassche@acm.org (Bart Van Assche)
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2018 14:47:50 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] Revert "workqueue: re-add lockdep dependencies for
 flushing"
In-Reply-To: <13901aed5074f4b1fbd259d03928efb6ab40c65a.camel@sipsolutions.net>
References: <20181022151818.135163-1-bvanassche@acm.org>
 <13901aed5074f4b1fbd259d03928efb6ab40c65a.camel@sipsolutions.net>
Message-ID: <1540244870.128590.39.camel@acm.org>

On Mon, 2018-10-22@22:14 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> I must also say that I'm disappointed you'd try to do things this way.
> I'd be (have been?) willing to actually help you understand the problem
> and add the annotations, but rather than answer my question ("where do I
> find the right git tree"!) you just send a revert patch.

Sorry that I had not yet provided that information. You should have
received this information through another e-mail thread. See also
http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-nvme/2018-October/020493.html.

> To do that, you have to understand what recursion is valid (I'm guessing
> there's some sort of layering involved), and I'm far from understanding
> anything about the code that triggered this report.

I don't think there is any kind of recursion involved in the NVMe code
that triggered the lockdep complaint. Sagi, please correct me if I got this
wrong.

Bart.