From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from galois.linutronix.de (Galois.linutronix.de [193.142.43.55]) (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 733AD201014 for ; Wed, 27 Nov 2024 16:44:46 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=193.142.43.55 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1732725888; cv=none; b=djwnP//F17+bYkDMHBjUGSVUvbCrnKerUpiz91bW942xZb6Utnk7mv4By75/RrViasnwU2Hp7vdlPm8B33VDLMp7/aLOIdtKk1kRDoDLWoKKSgUcFlZAmADVUoLgbS6hcgWrkczojpMngw7KzxxUvmWUGf3a3x1xmEMSbfosreY= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1732725888; c=relaxed/simple; bh=pk5ctIX2qWikNT36hq6qyPfezaYMjjb2ZJMBLXpStDY=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=LpsWoRtrhyx37P/c7/1EL6hnu/HfANNMQ2hokXGDBr+NhLCgvUblAp/rqtnL2yLe5o5Rx/Y0Cz7ZO3+TmLWE/XJj+war08LzRPV9KVidOtHShIhOEjji31R8tfPaeZQCGIi/hfcRWy3IsvN+yWqjivBOnZK9+6SKwT8V18MwhdI= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linutronix.de; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linutronix.de; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b=4NF3stEs; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b=rO300cpY; arc=none smtp.client-ip=193.142.43.55 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linutronix.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linutronix.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b="4NF3stEs"; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b="rO300cpY" Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2024 17:44:42 +0100 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020; t=1732725884; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=c675eBn/bO4NrSflRKKSYCW+BqGb14xs/0rdhczcr94=; b=4NF3stEsrMN/+USSh1bF1ztGNnB8bqAiMspDr2RDBR91IFibYkQX8S1EZ7TvjGsn+nBQzb Wa5hJe0bHp2u3/PnfmCBQwVflGvfvMHgpCD/RJfmLl4kgmBInyKzLCafCuIuwacX4uPMSB +v9pEjMGZc27yT9LYoZubutgtDASUHa/N5SGVeBaiCRzQ6oeTclNMHX4CC7WZNlKLE9Ntx KiWdIzHD6E0ClDW5x0HflX1BFKROkkd5anSxsKnFSfbALYuhky53PkLzf3revaauoFmEDP L3X7giUO+6QviDaB+JnHruk3cSiHJlin/h6gvl8A9IYAfZNcSps3XeL2oiDuEg== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020e; t=1732725884; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=c675eBn/bO4NrSflRKKSYCW+BqGb14xs/0rdhczcr94=; b=rO300cpYbAsZr6dzYWNfoFWKo7QTcdMJCNuoA1hr4qy0XoTP+/+5OXQ7ktMmMW1h5KjhiA tC/WpcF1kC82cHBw== From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior To: Waiman Long Cc: Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar , Will Deacon , Boqun Feng , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Guenter Roeck Subject: Re: [PATCH] locking/lockdep: Enforce PROVE_RAW_LOCK_NESTING only if ARCH_SUPPORTS_RT Message-ID: <20241127164442.catRG_Aw@linutronix.de> References: <20241126231154.29151-1-longman@redhat.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20241126231154.29151-1-longman@redhat.com> On 2024-11-26 18:11:54 [-0500], Waiman Long wrote: > Relax the rule to set PROVE_RAW_LOCK_NESTING by default only for arches > that supports PREEMPT_RT. For arches that do not support PREEMPT_RT, > they will not be forced to address irrelevant raw lock nesting issues > when they want to enable PROVE_LOCKING. I don't like the wording here. It is not "irrelevant raw lock nesting issues". This is documented in Documentation/locking/locktypes.rst. *IFF* we agree to ignore those because we don't want PREEMPT_RT on certain architectures then okay. But please don't describe it as irrelevant. Sebastian