Re: [PATCH v4 07/35] lockdep: Annotate lockdep assertions for context analysis

[Marco Elver <elver@google.com>]

On Thu, 11 Dec 2025 at 12:43, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 20, 2025 at 04:09:32PM +0100, Marco Elver wrote:
>
> >  include/linux/lockdep.h | 12 ++++++------
> >  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/linux/lockdep.h b/include/linux/lockdep.h
> > index 67964dc4db95..2c99a6823161 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/lockdep.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/lockdep.h
> > @@ -282,16 +282,16 @@ extern void lock_unpin_lock(struct lockdep_map *lock, struct pin_cookie);
> >       do { WARN_ON_ONCE(debug_locks && !(cond)); } while (0)
>
> Since I typically read patches without first reading the Changelog --
> because when I read the code later, I also don't see changelogs.
>
> I must admit to getting most terribly confused here -- *again*, as I
> then search back to previous discussions and found I was previously also
> confused.
>
> As such, I think we want a comment here that explains that assume_ctx
> thing.
>
> It is *NOT* (as the clang naming suggests) an assertion of holding the
> lock (which is requires_ctx), but rather an annotation that forces the
> ctx to be considered held.

Noted. I'll add some appropriate wording above the
__assumes_ctx_guard() attribute, so this is not lost in the commit
logs.