From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFCA7C4742C for ; Thu, 12 Nov 2020 01:44:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DBA220809 for ; Thu, 12 Nov 2020 01:44:53 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b="OOLLK61i"; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b="Mq86teNZ" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728335AbgKLBfT (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Nov 2020 20:35:19 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:59476 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727861AbgKKXQx (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Nov 2020 18:16:53 -0500 Received: from galois.linutronix.de (Galois.linutronix.de [IPv6:2a0a:51c0:0:12e:550::1]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 73B5DC0613D1 for ; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 15:16:53 -0800 (PST) From: Thomas Gleixner DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020; t=1605136611; 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=ZBC1a6+oJdZ9ZhegVBbSXHq4ymUdKp4wpPY9WVvD+4U=; b=OOLLK61iYru4uJUTQBw5YiR2s/geKPg0svNv9uNW5zGWYP6EG1MT5u4GcNWrZs/SrOpt41 I2wxIJl+MYMpsUH54rDPtPeJkGkQ8UrZ1cT35ottJnXEi7vQn2uqq3c7V6n19S5lj5zeZy xM1qEkjPFFHTr3stetkYGAemQNeMetqm2hZDPkqtMOTiCnDtxpIzB4hELqYWp0NN6Opptp 2JeCs+5wOGyZoNvCRDu5vj6G+IWxeASKi1T7HUjrAXhXzsKmm9ScnpX0LfWgWJVjFC+u/d AgVsbzYUXnN/NsX1EdYRqChJ3AhKjmZ/kelNMJQjB1hLJiX+a8p6fq9sC5JyLA== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020e; t=1605136611; 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=ZBC1a6+oJdZ9ZhegVBbSXHq4ymUdKp4wpPY9WVvD+4U=; b=Mq86teNZY0ss8LzRve+zEkGiFTpJ0SrNz+jQFtcnaD3JVmOB1kvIKM3eg4OBOJh8ZUXBBj 1uZdCUNe7azcWYDg== To: Steven Rostedt , Ingo Molnar Cc: Byungchul Park , torvalds@linux-foundation.org, peterz@infradead.org, mingo@redhat.com, will@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, joel@joelfernandes.org, alexander.levin@microsoft.com, daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch, chris@chris-wilson.co.uk, duyuyang@gmail.com, johannes.berg@intel.com, tj@kernel.org, tytso@mit.edu, willy@infradead.org, david@fromorbit.com, amir73il@gmail.com, bfields@fieldses.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, kernel-team@lge.com Subject: Re: [RFC] Are you good with Lockdep? In-Reply-To: <20201111093609.1bd2b637@gandalf.local.home> References: <20201111050559.GA24438@X58A-UD3R> <20201111105441.GA78848@gmail.com> <20201111093609.1bd2b637@gandalf.local.home> Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2020 00:16:50 +0100 Message-ID: <87d00jo55p.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Nov 11 2020 at 09:36, Steven Rostedt wrote: > Ingo Molnar wrote: >> Not sure I understand the "problem 2)" outlined here, but I'm looking >> forward to your patchset! >> > I think I understand it. For things like completions and other "wait for > events" we have lockdep annotation, but it is rather awkward to implement. > Having something that says "lockdep_wait_event()" and > "lockdep_exec_event()" wrappers would be useful. Wrappers which make things simpler are always useful, but the lack of wrappers does not justify a wholesale replacement. We all know that lockdep has limitations but I yet have to see a proper argument why this can't be solved incrementaly on top of the existing infrastructure. That said, I'm not at all interested in a wholesale replacement of lockdep which will take exactly the same amount of time to stabilize and weed out the shortcomings again. Thanks, tglx