From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kalle Valo Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/16] wireless: Replace spin_is_locked() with lockdep Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2018 12:06:48 +0300 Message-ID: <877eizjt5j.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com> References: <20181003053902.6910-1-ldr709@gmail.com> <20181003053902.6910-9-ldr709@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Paul E. McKenney" , Daniel Drake , Ulrich Kunitz , "David S. Miller" , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Lance Roy Return-path: Received: from smtp.codeaurora.org ([198.145.29.96]:50814 "EHLO smtp.codeaurora.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727188AbeJCPyX (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Oct 2018 11:54:23 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20181003053902.6910-9-ldr709@gmail.com> (Lance Roy's message of "Tue, 2 Oct 2018 22:38:54 -0700") Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Lance Roy writes: > 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 > Cc: Daniel Drake > Cc: Ulrich Kunitz > Cc: Kalle Valo > Cc: "David S. Miller" > Cc: > Cc: > --- > drivers/net/wireless/zydas/zd1211rw/zd_mac.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) Should I take this or is it going through some other tree? If it goes to via some other tree: Acked-by: Kalle Valo -- Kalle Valo