From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-alma10-1.taild15c8.ts.net [100.103.45.18]) (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 5120B446822 for ; Tue, 21 Jul 2026 15:23:48 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1784647430; cv=none; b=SyIwUQTW+C5+uF6nwhDHaXi/2hB0EYHVTsuo5qCdQPM2VYK7uSGRuK4XvNc5acMMlX1N1Ugv/GrbJtcmqQ2SedXUgKGWHVJgl76hZ526HV+wPausakmXm9PbPBZ3G7UKeyVy8CRHV244jwQNfs/3Bvd+lmlpGPlBBQcjZ/+KHLg= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1784647430; c=relaxed/simple; bh=FJl7p5kBn+csQ3hgHCE3R7u0NjyOTPe+PlCoREt6fW8=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=BQQMn/cmA/lzUH38nMC71HtPgYdlW/RTikBI227VIH5k/OrFcEgJHKuvVsHv31GBFcNbE/XJJUc1fUCe19r4c6ZQ/wbD4J3LE06yRQRZKgpgz6zWLliuRIwhLcNKNpQrWkD4ltzlDCOwuxCm+kpstalEWOo51WF4BKioBjYsX80= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=FL5v+8Q0; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="FL5v+8Q0" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with UTF8SMTPSA id BC6281F000E9; Tue, 21 Jul 2026 15:23:48 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1784647428; bh=aBnVDPaZxUjX/aFDookiOziiwVxHn48/cT18M+DXqXE=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=FL5v+8Q0ZKFKejLQaspYt+MwROFrHhRKSglxJItIMblZ/Sma7a0AyknCHFWePG4EE CDdQ4VM//tps+m7dN3JU6dqxgCpc2Yxlk5n58DvAkpaCSAe8Mvzbjteg+u9YWU1+Dm Htr/DEqvzp6yeB60H8EDiRCU3xmWB4NbdekzBp7s+se8YuhNM44MA2Rvvlfo7Io7Cg WW7fd6otLkqc4aluFZw5q+FARsK+nT7S7nUhFUO5EQ0iwZbE0zeijy19/Y+9XRfOMu sreKuZ6X/WdKELZfGsWJrL9eG0Wcl0YJag+VgscPsASznSnm7e6vFWBrXcNFGi9cIA aTYsVNOLD8Nyg== Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2026 08:23:48 -0700 From: "Darrick J. Wong" To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Carlos Maiolino , linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, dgc@kernel.org Subject: Re: improve log context annotations Message-ID: <20260721152348.GY7380@frogsfrogsfrogs> References: <20260720094609.2191633-1-hch@lst.de> <20260721150142.GA14984@lst.de> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20260721150142.GA14984@lst.de> On Tue, Jul 21, 2026 at 05:01:42PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Tue, Jul 21, 2026 at 11:16:40AM +0200, Carlos Maiolino wrote: > > Thanks. Those all look good for me. But I'm adding Dave to the thread as > > he has much more expertise with lockdep than me and I'd appreciate his > > input. > > More review is always good. But as a reminder for the audience: > lockdep and the lock context annotations are two totally seaprate > things. The former verifies the locking state at runtime, while > the latter is about compile-time enforcement for the cases where > that is possible. The new annotations are consistent with my understanding of the annotated functions, but as I don't build with clang I can't say I've actually dug into its auto-verifier features, let alone run it. --D