From: Lance Roy <ldr709@gmail.com>
To: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
x86@kernel.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/16] x86/PCI: Replace spin_is_locked() with lockdep
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 23:50:11 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181004065011.GC896@E570.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20181003160051.GF120535@bhelgaas-glaptop.roam.corp.google.com>
On Wed, Oct 03, 2018 at 11:00:51AM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 02, 2018 at 10:38:47PM -0700, Lance Roy wrote:
> > lockdep_assert_held() is better suited to checking locking requirements,
> > since it won't get confused when someone else holds the lock. This is
> > also a step towards possibly removing spin_is_locked().
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Lance Roy <ldr709@gmail.com>
> > Cc: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>
> > Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
> > Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
> > Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
> > Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
> > Cc: <x86@kernel.org>
> > Cc: <linux-pci@vger.kernel.org>
>
> I assume you plan to merge the whole series together. I don't object
> to that, but I don't know enough to be able to formally ack this.
>
> It would be useful to include a tiny bit more detail in the changelog.
> The spin_is_locked() documentation doesn't mention anything about
> differences with respect to the lock being held by self vs by someone
> else, so I can't tell where the confusion arises.
The difference is that spin_is_locked() will return true when someone else holds
the lock, while lockdep_assert_held() asserts that the current thread holds the
lock. How about the following for an new changelog?
lockdep_assert_held() is better suited to checking locking requirements,
since it only checks if the current thread holds the lock regardless of
whether someone else does. This is also a step towards possibly removing
spin_is_locked().
Thanks,
Lance
> Bjorn
>
> > ---
> > arch/x86/pci/i386.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/pci/i386.c b/arch/x86/pci/i386.c
> > index ed4ac215305d..24bb58a007de 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/pci/i386.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/pci/i386.c
> > @@ -59,7 +59,7 @@ static struct pcibios_fwaddrmap *pcibios_fwaddrmap_lookup(struct pci_dev *dev)
> > {
> > struct pcibios_fwaddrmap *map;
> >
> > - WARN_ON_SMP(!spin_is_locked(&pcibios_fwaddrmap_lock));
> > + lockdep_assert_held(&pcibios_fwaddrmap_lock);
> >
> > list_for_each_entry(map, &pcibios_fwaddrmappings, list)
> > if (map->dev == dev)
> > --
> > 2.19.0
> >
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-10-04 6:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-10-03 5:38 Using lockdep instead of spin_is_locked() Lance Roy
2018-10-03 5:38 ` [PATCH 01/16] x86/PCI: Replace spin_is_locked() with lockdep Lance Roy
2018-10-03 16:00 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2018-10-04 6:50 ` Lance Roy [this message]
2018-10-03 5:38 ` [PATCH 02/16] hv_balloon: " Lance Roy
2018-10-03 13:20 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov
2018-10-03 5:38 ` [PATCH 03/16] sgi-xp: " Lance Roy
2018-10-03 5:38 ` [PATCH 04/16] i40e: " Lance Roy
2018-10-04 18:56 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Bowers, AndrewX
2018-10-03 5:38 ` [PATCH 05/16] igbvf: " Lance Roy
2018-10-13 0:11 ` Brown, Aaron F
2018-10-03 5:38 ` [PATCH 06/16] sfc: " Lance Roy
2018-10-03 5:38 ` [PATCH 07/16] smsc: " Lance Roy
2018-10-03 5:38 ` [PATCH 08/16] wireless: " Lance Roy
2018-10-03 9:06 ` Kalle Valo
2018-10-04 6:57 ` Lance Roy
2018-10-04 10:05 ` Kalle Valo
2018-10-05 8:35 ` [PATCH 08/16] zd1211rw: " Kalle Valo
2018-10-03 5:38 ` [PATCH 09/16] scsi: " Lance Roy
2018-10-03 13:53 ` Bart Van Assche
2018-10-11 2:37 ` Martin K. Petersen
2018-10-03 5:38 ` [PATCH 10/16] userfaultfd: " Lance Roy
2018-10-03 5:38 ` [PATCH 11/16] futex: " Lance Roy
2018-10-09 11:21 ` [tip:locking/core] " tip-bot for Lance Roy
2018-10-03 5:38 ` [PATCH 12/16] locking/mutex: " Lance Roy
2018-10-09 12:18 ` Will Deacon
2018-10-09 13:36 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-10-03 5:38 ` [PATCH 13/16] mm: " Lance Roy
2018-10-03 7:37 ` Vlastimil Babka
2018-10-03 5:39 ` [PATCH 14/16] netfilter: " Lance Roy
2018-10-03 8:29 ` Jozsef Kadlecsik
2018-10-03 5:39 ` [PATCH 15/16] apparmor: " Lance Roy
2018-10-03 5:56 ` John Johansen
2018-10-03 5:39 ` [PATCH 16/16] KVM: arm/arm64: vgic: " Lance Roy
2018-11-02 18:45 ` Christoffer Dall
2018-11-02 19:42 ` Paul E. McKenney
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=20181004065011.GC896@E570.localdomain \
--to=ldr709@gmail.com \
--cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=helgaas@kernel.org \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=paulmck@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=x86@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