LinuxLists.cc - Using lockdep instead of spin_is

2018-10-03 05:40:06

Subject: Using lockdep instead of spin_is_locked()

One of the main uses of spin_is_locked() is to require that a lock is held when
a function is called, for debugging, but lockdep_assert_held() is better for
this purpose since it won't make a mistake when someone else is holding the
lock. This patch series replaces all of this kind of use of spin_is_locked()
with calls to lockdep_assert_held(). An ulterior motive is to reduce the number
of uses of spin_is_locked() from the kernel, to work towards possibly
eliminating it.

Thanks,
Lance

arch/x86/pci/i386.c | 2 +-
drivers/hv/hv_balloon.c | 2 +-
drivers/misc/sgi-xp/xpc_channel.c | 6 +++---
drivers/misc/sgi-xp/xpc_sn2.c | 2 +-
drivers/misc/sgi-xp/xpc_uv.c | 2 +-
drivers/net/ethernet/intel/i40e/i40e_main.c | 3 +--
drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igbvf/mbx.c | 4 ++--
drivers/net/ethernet/sfc/efx.c | 2 +-
drivers/net/ethernet/smsc/smsc911x.h | 2 +-
drivers/net/wireless/zydas/zd1211rw/zd_mac.c | 2 +-
drivers/scsi/snic/snic_scsi.c | 4 ++--
fs/userfaultfd.c | 2 +-
kernel/futex.c | 4 ++--
kernel/locking/mutex-debug.c | 4 ++--
mm/khugepaged.c | 4 ++--
mm/swap.c | 3 +--
net/netfilter/ipset/ip_set_hash_gen.h | 2 +-
security/apparmor/file.c | 2 +-
virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic.c | 12 ++++++------
19 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-)

2018-10-03 05:40:29

by Lance Roy

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: [PATCH 03/16] sgi-xp: Replace spin_is_locked() with lockdep

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 <[email protected]>
Cc: Cliff Whickman <[email protected]>
Cc: Robin Holt <[email protected]>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <[email protected]>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]>
---
drivers/misc/sgi-xp/xpc_channel.c | 6 +++---
drivers/misc/sgi-xp/xpc_sn2.c | 2 +-
drivers/misc/sgi-xp/xpc_uv.c | 2 +-
3 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/misc/sgi-xp/xpc_channel.c b/drivers/misc/sgi-xp/xpc_channel.c
index 05a890ce2ab8..8e6607fc8a67 100644
--- a/drivers/misc/sgi-xp/xpc_channel.c
+++ b/drivers/misc/sgi-xp/xpc_channel.c
@@ -28,7 +28,7 @@ xpc_process_connect(struct xpc_channel *ch, unsigned long *irq_flags)
{
enum xp_retval ret;

- DBUG_ON(!spin_is_locked(&ch->lock));
+ lockdep_assert_held(&ch->lock);

if (!(ch->flags & XPC_C_OPENREQUEST) ||
!(ch->flags & XPC_C_ROPENREQUEST)) {
@@ -82,7 +82,7 @@ xpc_process_disconnect(struct xpc_channel *ch, unsigned long *irq_flags)
struct xpc_partition *part = &xpc_partitions[ch->partid];
u32 channel_was_connected = (ch->flags & XPC_C_WASCONNECTED);

- DBUG_ON(!spin_is_locked(&ch->lock));
+ lockdep_assert_held(&ch->lock);

if (!(ch->flags & XPC_C_DISCONNECTING))
return;
@@ -755,7 +755,7 @@ xpc_disconnect_channel(const int line, struct xpc_channel *ch,
{
u32 channel_was_connected = (ch->flags & XPC_C_CONNECTED);

- DBUG_ON(!spin_is_locked(&ch->lock));
+ lockdep_assert_held(&ch->lock);

if (ch->flags & (XPC_C_DISCONNECTING | XPC_C_DISCONNECTED))
return;
diff --git a/drivers/misc/sgi-xp/xpc_sn2.c b/drivers/misc/sgi-xp/xpc_sn2.c
index 5a12d2a54049..0ae69b9390ce 100644
--- a/drivers/misc/sgi-xp/xpc_sn2.c
+++ b/drivers/misc/sgi-xp/xpc_sn2.c
@@ -1671,7 +1671,7 @@ xpc_teardown_msg_structures_sn2(struct xpc_channel *ch)
{
struct xpc_channel_sn2 *ch_sn2 = &ch->sn.sn2;

- DBUG_ON(!spin_is_locked(&ch->lock));
+ lockdep_assert_held(&ch->lock);

ch_sn2->remote_msgqueue_pa = 0;

diff --git a/drivers/misc/sgi-xp/xpc_uv.c b/drivers/misc/sgi-xp/xpc_uv.c
index 340b44d9e8cf..0441abe87880 100644
--- a/drivers/misc/sgi-xp/xpc_uv.c
+++ b/drivers/misc/sgi-xp/xpc_uv.c
@@ -1183,7 +1183,7 @@ xpc_teardown_msg_structures_uv(struct xpc_channel *ch)
{
struct xpc_channel_uv *ch_uv = &ch->sn.uv;

- DBUG_ON(!spin_is_locked(&ch->lock));
+ lockdep_assert_held(&ch->lock);

kfree(ch_uv->cached_notify_gru_mq_desc);
ch_uv->cached_notify_gru_mq_desc = NULL;
--
2.19.0

2018-10-03 05:40:40

by Lance Roy

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: [PATCH 06/16] sfc: Replace spin_is_locked() with lockdep

2018-10-03 05:40:43

by Lance Roy

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: [PATCH 07/16] smsc: Replace spin_is_locked() with lockdep

2018-10-03 05:40:50

by Lance Roy

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: [PATCH 12/16] locking/mutex: Replace spin_is_locked() with lockdep

2018-10-03 05:40:57

by Lance Roy

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: [PATCH 15/16] apparmor: Replace spin_is_locked() with lockdep

2018-10-03 05:41:11

by Lance Roy

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: [PATCH 16/16] KVM: arm/arm64: vgic: Replace spin_is_locked() with lockdep

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 <[email protected]>
Cc: Christoffer Dall <[email protected]>
Cc: Marc Zyngier <[email protected]>
Cc: Eric Auger <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Cc: <[email protected]>
---
virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic.c | 12 ++++++------
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic.c b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic.c
index 7cfdfbc910e0..50e25438fb3c 100644
--- a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic.c
+++ b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic.c
@@ -196,7 +196,7 @@ void vgic_irq_set_phys_active(struct vgic_irq *irq, bool active)
*/
static struct kvm_vcpu *vgic_target_oracle(struct vgic_irq *irq)
{
- DEBUG_SPINLOCK_BUG_ON(!spin_is_locked(&irq->irq_lock));
+ lockdep_assert_held(&irq->irq_lock);

/* If the interrupt is active, it must stay on the current vcpu */
if (irq->active)
@@ -273,7 +273,7 @@ static void vgic_sort_ap_list(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
{
struct vgic_cpu *vgic_cpu = &vcpu->arch.vgic_cpu;

- DEBUG_SPINLOCK_BUG_ON(!spin_is_locked(&vgic_cpu->ap_list_lock));
+ lockdep_assert_held(&vgic_cpu->ap_list_lock);

list_sort(NULL, &vgic_cpu->ap_list_head, vgic_irq_cmp);
}
@@ -311,7 +311,7 @@ bool vgic_queue_irq_unlock(struct kvm *kvm, struct vgic_irq *irq,
{
struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu;

- DEBUG_SPINLOCK_BUG_ON(!spin_is_locked(&irq->irq_lock));
+ lockdep_assert_held(&irq->irq_lock);

retry:
vcpu = vgic_target_oracle(irq);
@@ -702,7 +702,7 @@ static inline void vgic_fold_lr_state(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
static inline void vgic_populate_lr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
struct vgic_irq *irq, int lr)
{
- DEBUG_SPINLOCK_BUG_ON(!spin_is_locked(&irq->irq_lock));
+ lockdep_assert_held(&irq->irq_lock);

if (kvm_vgic_global_state.type == VGIC_V2)
vgic_v2_populate_lr(vcpu, irq, lr);
@@ -736,7 +736,7 @@ static int compute_ap_list_depth(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,

*multi_sgi = false;

- DEBUG_SPINLOCK_BUG_ON(!spin_is_locked(&vgic_cpu->ap_list_lock));
+ lockdep_assert_held(&vgic_cpu->ap_list_lock);

list_for_each_entry(irq, &vgic_cpu->ap_list_head, ap_list) {
int w;
@@ -761,7 +761,7 @@ static void vgic_flush_lr_state(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
bool multi_sgi;
u8 prio = 0xff;

- DEBUG_SPINLOCK_BUG_ON(!spin_is_locked(&vgic_cpu->ap_list_lock));
+ lockdep_assert_held(&vgic_cpu->ap_list_lock);

count = compute_ap_list_depth(vcpu, &multi_sgi);
if (count > kvm_vgic_global_state.nr_lr || multi_sgi)
--
2.19.0

2018-10-03 05:41:15

by Lance Roy

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: [PATCH 14/16] netfilter: Replace spin_is_locked() with lockdep

2018-10-03 05:41:50

by Lance Roy

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: [PATCH 10/16] userfaultfd: Replace spin_is_locked() with lockdep

2018-10-03 05:41:56

by Lance Roy

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: [PATCH 09/16] scsi: Replace spin_is_locked() with lockdep

2018-10-03 05:42:03

by Lance Roy

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: [PATCH 13/16] mm: Replace spin_is_locked() with lockdep

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 <[email protected]>
Cc: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
Cc: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <[email protected]>
Cc: Yang Shi <[email protected]>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox <[email protected]>
Cc: Mel Gorman <[email protected]>
Cc: Vlastimil Babka <[email protected]>
Cc: Jan Kara <[email protected]>
Cc: Shakeel Butt <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>
---
mm/khugepaged.c | 4 ++--
mm/swap.c | 3 +--
2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/mm/khugepaged.c b/mm/khugepaged.c
index a31d740e6cd1..80f12467ccb3 100644
--- a/mm/khugepaged.c
+++ b/mm/khugepaged.c
@@ -1225,7 +1225,7 @@ static void collect_mm_slot(struct mm_slot *mm_slot)
{
struct mm_struct *mm = mm_slot->mm;

- VM_BUG_ON(NR_CPUS != 1 && !spin_is_locked(&khugepaged_mm_lock));
+ lockdep_assert_held(&khugepaged_mm_lock);

if (khugepaged_test_exit(mm)) {
/* free mm_slot */
@@ -1665,7 +1665,7 @@ static unsigned int khugepaged_scan_mm_slot(unsigned int pages,
int progress = 0;

VM_BUG_ON(!pages);
- VM_BUG_ON(NR_CPUS != 1 && !spin_is_locked(&khugepaged_mm_lock));
+ lockdep_assert_held(&khugepaged_mm_lock);

if (khugepaged_scan.mm_slot)
mm_slot = khugepaged_scan.mm_slot;
diff --git a/mm/swap.c b/mm/swap.c
index 26fc9b5f1b6c..c89eb442c0bf 100644
--- a/mm/swap.c
+++ b/mm/swap.c
@@ -824,8 +824,7 @@ void lru_add_page_tail(struct page *page, struct page *page_tail,
VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(!PageHead(page), page);
VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(PageCompound(page_tail), page);
VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(PageLRU(page_tail), page);
- VM_BUG_ON(NR_CPUS != 1 &&
- !spin_is_locked(&lruvec_pgdat(lruvec)->lru_lock));
+ lockdep_assert_held(&lruvec_pgdat(lruvec)->lru_lock);

if (!list)
SetPageLRU(page_tail);
--
2.19.0

2018-10-03 05:42:07

by Lance Roy

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: [PATCH 08/16] wireless: Replace spin_is_locked() with lockdep

2018-10-03 05:42:29

by Lance Roy

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: [PATCH 05/16] igbvf: Replace spin_is_locked() with lockdep

2018-10-03 05:42:51

by Lance Roy

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: [PATCH 02/16] hv_balloon: Replace spin_is_locked() with lockdep

2018-10-03 05:42:52

by Lance Roy

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: [PATCH 11/16] futex: Replace spin_is_locked() with lockdep

2018-10-03 05:43:11

by Lance Roy

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: [PATCH 04/16] i40e: Replace spin_is_locked() with lockdep

2018-10-03 05:44:11

by Lance Roy

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: [PATCH 01/16] x86/PCI: Replace spin_is_locked() with lockdep

2018-10-03 05:56:50

by John Johansen

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: Re: [PATCH 15/16] apparmor: Replace spin_is_locked() with lockdep

On 10/02/2018 10:39 PM, 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 <[email protected]>
> Cc: John Johansen <[email protected]>
> Cc: James Morris <[email protected]>
> Cc: "Serge E. Hallyn" <[email protected]>
> Cc: <[email protected]>

Acked-by: John Johansen <[email protected]>

> ---
> security/apparmor/file.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/security/apparmor/file.c b/security/apparmor/file.c
> index 4285943f7260..d0afed9ebd0e 100644
> --- a/security/apparmor/file.c
> +++ b/security/apparmor/file.c
> @@ -496,7 +496,7 @@ static void update_file_ctx(struct aa_file_ctx *fctx, struct aa_label *label,
> /* update caching of label on file_ctx */
> spin_lock(&fctx->lock);
> old = rcu_dereference_protected(fctx->label,
> - spin_is_locked(&fctx->lock));
> + lockdep_is_held(&fctx->lock));
> l = aa_label_merge(old, label, GFP_ATOMIC);
> if (l) {
> if (l != old) {
>

2018-10-03 07:40:40

by Vlastimil Babka

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: Re: [PATCH 13/16] mm: Replace spin_is_locked() with lockdep

On 10/3/18 7:38 AM, 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().

Agreed
> Signed-off-by: Lance Roy <[email protected]>
> Cc: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
> Cc: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <[email protected]>
> Cc: Yang Shi <[email protected]>
> Cc: Matthew Wilcox <[email protected]>
> Cc: Mel Gorman <[email protected]>
> Cc: Vlastimil Babka <[email protected]>
> Cc: Jan Kara <[email protected]>
> Cc: Shakeel Butt <[email protected]>
> Cc: <[email protected]>

Acked-by: Vlastimil Babka <[email protected]>

> ---
> mm/khugepaged.c | 4 ++--
> mm/swap.c | 3 +--
> 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/khugepaged.c b/mm/khugepaged.c
> index a31d740e6cd1..80f12467ccb3 100644
> --- a/mm/khugepaged.c
> +++ b/mm/khugepaged.c
> @@ -1225,7 +1225,7 @@ static void collect_mm_slot(struct mm_slot *mm_slot)
> {
> struct mm_struct *mm = mm_slot->mm;
>
> - VM_BUG_ON(NR_CPUS != 1 && !spin_is_locked(&khugepaged_mm_lock));
> + lockdep_assert_held(&khugepaged_mm_lock);
>
> if (khugepaged_test_exit(mm)) {
> /* free mm_slot */
> @@ -1665,7 +1665,7 @@ static unsigned int khugepaged_scan_mm_slot(unsigned int pages,
> int progress = 0;
>
> VM_BUG_ON(!pages);
> - VM_BUG_ON(NR_CPUS != 1 && !spin_is_locked(&khugepaged_mm_lock));
> + lockdep_assert_held(&khugepaged_mm_lock);
>
> if (khugepaged_scan.mm_slot)
> mm_slot = khugepaged_scan.mm_slot;
> diff --git a/mm/swap.c b/mm/swap.c
> index 26fc9b5f1b6c..c89eb442c0bf 100644
> --- a/mm/swap.c
> +++ b/mm/swap.c
> @@ -824,8 +824,7 @@ void lru_add_page_tail(struct page *page, struct page *page_tail,
> VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(!PageHead(page), page);
> VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(PageCompound(page_tail), page);
> VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(PageLRU(page_tail), page);
> - VM_BUG_ON(NR_CPUS != 1 &&
> - !spin_is_locked(&lruvec_pgdat(lruvec)->lru_lock));
> + lockdep_assert_held(&lruvec_pgdat(lruvec)->lru_lock);
>
> if (!list)
> SetPageLRU(page_tail);
>

2018-10-03 08:30:35

by Jozsef Kadlecsik

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: Re: [PATCH 14/16] netfilter: Replace spin_is_locked() with lockdep

On Tue, 2 Oct 2018, 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 <[email protected]>
> Cc: Pablo Neira Ayuso <[email protected]>
> Cc: Jozsef Kadlecsik <[email protected]>
> Cc: Florian Westphal <[email protected]>
> Cc: "David S. Miller" <[email protected]>
> Cc: <[email protected]>
> Cc: <[email protected]>
> Cc: <[email protected]>
> ---
> net/netfilter/ipset/ip_set_hash_gen.h | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

Acked-by: Jozsef Kadlecsik <[email protected]>

Best regards,
Jozsef

> diff --git a/net/netfilter/ipset/ip_set_hash_gen.h b/net/netfilter/ipset/ip_set_hash_gen.h
> index 8a33dac4e805..e287da68d5fa 100644
> --- a/net/netfilter/ipset/ip_set_hash_gen.h
> +++ b/net/netfilter/ipset/ip_set_hash_gen.h
> @@ -15,7 +15,7 @@
>
> #define __ipset_dereference_protected(p, c) rcu_dereference_protected(p, c)
> #define ipset_dereference_protected(p, set) \
> - __ipset_dereference_protected(p, spin_is_locked(&(set)->lock))
> + __ipset_dereference_protected(p, lockdep_is_held(&(set)->lock))
>
> #define rcu_dereference_bh_nfnl(p) rcu_dereference_bh_check(p, 1)
>
> --
> 2.19.0
>
>

-
E-mail : [email protected], [email protected]
PGP key : http://www.kfki.hu/~kadlec/pgp_public_key.txt
Address : Wigner Research Centre for Physics, Hungarian Academy of Sciences
H-1525 Budapest 114, POB. 49, Hungary

2018-10-03 09:07:15

by Kalle Valo

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/16] wireless: Replace spin_is_locked() with lockdep

2018-10-03 13:21:13

by Vitaly Kuznetsov

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/16] hv_balloon: Replace spin_is_locked() with lockdep

Lance Roy <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]>
> Cc: "K. Y. Srinivasan" <[email protected]>
> Cc: Haiyang Zhang <[email protected]>
> Cc: Stephen Hemminger <[email protected]>
> Cc: <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/hv/hv_balloon.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/hv/hv_balloon.c b/drivers/hv/hv_balloon.c
> index b1b788082793..41631512ae97 100644
> --- a/drivers/hv/hv_balloon.c
> +++ b/drivers/hv/hv_balloon.c
> @@ -689,7 +689,7 @@ static void hv_page_online_one(struct hv_hotadd_state *has, struct page *pg)
> __online_page_increment_counters(pg);
> __online_page_free(pg);
>
> - WARN_ON_ONCE(!spin_is_locked(&dm_device.ha_lock));
> + lockdep_assert_held(&dm_device.ha_lock);
> dm_device.num_pages_onlined++;
> }

Reviewed-by: Vitaly Kuznetsov <[email protected]>

However,

lockdep_assert_held() is a no-op when !CONFIG_LOCKDEP but this doesn't
really matter: hv_page_online_one() is static and it has only two call
sites, both taking the dm_device.ha_lock lock - so the warning may just
go away.

--
Vitaly

2018-10-03 13:53:53

by Bart Van Assche

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/16] scsi: Replace spin_is_locked() with lockdep

On 10/2/18 10:38 PM, 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().

Reviewed-by: Bart Van Assche <[email protected]>

2018-10-03 16:01:21

by Bjorn Helgaas

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/16] x86/PCI: Replace spin_is_locked() with lockdep

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 <[email protected]>
> Cc: Bjorn Helgaas <[email protected]>
> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]>
> Cc: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
> Cc: Borislav Petkov <[email protected]>
> Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <[email protected]>
> Cc: <[email protected]>
> Cc: <[email protected]>

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.

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
>

2018-10-04 06:50:35

by Lance Roy

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/16] x86/PCI: Replace spin_is_locked() with lockdep

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 <[email protected]>
> > Cc: Bjorn Helgaas <[email protected]>
> > Cc: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]>
> > Cc: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
> > Cc: Borislav Petkov <[email protected]>
> > Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <[email protected]>
> > Cc: <[email protected]>
> > Cc: <[email protected]>
>
> 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
> >

2018-10-04 06:57:48

by Lance Roy

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/16] wireless: Replace spin_is_locked() with lockdep

On Wed, Oct 03, 2018 at 12:06:48PM +0300, Kalle Valo wrote:
> Lance Roy <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]>
> > Cc: Daniel Drake <[email protected]>
> > Cc: Ulrich Kunitz <[email protected]>
> > Cc: Kalle Valo <[email protected]>
> > Cc: "David S. Miller" <[email protected]>
> > Cc: <[email protected]>
> > Cc: <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > 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?
Sure you can take this if you like. If not, Paul McKenney will take it in his
tree.

Thanks,
Lance

> If it goes to via some other tree:
>
> Acked-by: Kalle Valo <[email protected]>
>
> --
> Kalle Valo

2018-10-04 10:06:15

by Kalle Valo

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/16] wireless: Replace spin_is_locked() with lockdep

Lance Roy <[email protected]> writes:

> On Wed, Oct 03, 2018 at 12:06:48PM +0300, Kalle Valo wrote:
>> Lance Roy <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]>
>> > Cc: Daniel Drake <[email protected]>
>> > Cc: Ulrich Kunitz <[email protected]>
>> > Cc: Kalle Valo <[email protected]>
>> > Cc: "David S. Miller" <[email protected]>
>> > Cc: <[email protected]>
>> > Cc: <[email protected]>
>> > ---
>> > 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?
>
> Sure you can take this if you like. If not, Paul McKenney will take it in his
> tree.

Ok, then I'll take this to wireless-drivers-next. And I'll change the
title prefix to "zd1211rw: ".

--
Kalle Valo

2018-10-04 18:59:08

by Bowers, AndrewX

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: RE: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH 04/16] i40e: Replace spin_is_locked() with lockdep

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Intel-wired-lan [mailto:[email protected]] On
> Behalf Of Lance Roy
> Sent: Tuesday, October 2, 2018 10:39 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]; Lance Roy <[email protected]>; intel-wired-
> [email protected]; Paul E. McKenney <[email protected]>; David S.
> Miller <[email protected]>
> Subject: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH 04/16] i40e: Replace spin_is_locked() with
> lockdep
>
> 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 <[email protected]>
> Cc: Jeff Kirsher <[email protected]>
> Cc: "David S. Miller" <[email protected]>
> Cc: [email protected]
> Cc: <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/net/ethernet/intel/i40e/i40e_main.c | 3 +--
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)

Tested-by: Andrew Bowers <[email protected]>

2018-10-05 08:35:59

by Kalle Valo

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/16] zd1211rw: Replace spin_is_locked() with lockdep

Lance Roy <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]>
> Cc: Daniel Drake <[email protected]>
> Cc: Ulrich Kunitz <[email protected]>
> Cc: Kalle Valo <[email protected]>
> Cc: "David S. Miller" <[email protected]>
> Cc: <[email protected]>
> Cc: <[email protected]>

Patch applied to wireless-drivers-next.git, thanks.

209e957b467b zd1211rw: Replace spin_is_locked() with lockdep

--
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10624325/

https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches

2018-10-09 11:23:26

by tip-bot for Vasyl Gomonovych

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: [tip:locking/core] futex: Replace spin_is_locked() with lockdep

Commit-ID: 4de1a293a08bdf8ec1530e02163930ac86f80ea2
Gitweb: https://git.kernel.org/tip/4de1a293a08bdf8ec1530e02163930ac86f80ea2
Author: Lance Roy <[email protected]>
AuthorDate: Tue, 2 Oct 2018 22:38:57 -0700
Committer: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]>
CommitDate: Tue, 9 Oct 2018 13:19:28 +0200

futex: Replace spin_is_locked() with lockdep

lockdep_assert_held() is better suited for checking locking requirements,
since it won't get confused when the lock is held by some other task. This
is also a step towards possibly removing spin_is_locked().

Signed-off-by: Lance Roy <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <[email protected]>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]>
Cc: Darren Hart <[email protected]>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/[email protected]

---
kernel/futex.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/futex.c b/kernel/futex.c
index 11fc3bb456d6..3e2de8fc1891 100644
--- a/kernel/futex.c
+++ b/kernel/futex.c
@@ -1365,9 +1365,9 @@ static void __unqueue_futex(struct futex_q *q)
{
struct futex_hash_bucket *hb;

- if (WARN_ON_SMP(!q->lock_ptr || !spin_is_locked(q->lock_ptr))
- || WARN_ON(plist_node_empty(&q->list)))
+ if (WARN_ON_SMP(!q->lock_ptr) || WARN_ON(plist_node_empty(&q->list)))
return;
+ lockdep_assert_held(q->lock_ptr);

hb = container_of(q->lock_ptr, struct futex_hash_bucket, lock);
plist_del(&q->list, &hb->chain);

2018-10-09 12:20:38

by Will Deacon

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/16] locking/mutex: Replace spin_is_locked() with lockdep

On Tue, Oct 02, 2018 at 10:38:58PM -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 <[email protected]>
> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]>
> Cc: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
> Cc: Will Deacon <[email protected]>
> ---
> kernel/locking/mutex-debug.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/locking/mutex-debug.c b/kernel/locking/mutex-debug.c
> index 9aa713629387..771d4ca96dda 100644
> --- a/kernel/locking/mutex-debug.c
> +++ b/kernel/locking/mutex-debug.c
> @@ -36,7 +36,7 @@ void debug_mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock, struct mutex_waiter *waiter)
>
> void debug_mutex_wake_waiter(struct mutex *lock, struct mutex_waiter *waiter)
> {
> - SMP_DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(!spin_is_locked(&lock->wait_lock));
> + lockdep_assert_held(&lock->wait_lock);
> DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(list_empty(&lock->wait_list));
> DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(waiter->magic != waiter);
> DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(list_empty(&waiter->list));
> @@ -51,7 +51,7 @@ void debug_mutex_free_waiter(struct mutex_waiter *waiter)
> void debug_mutex_add_waiter(struct mutex *lock, struct mutex_waiter *waiter,
> struct task_struct *task)
> {
> - SMP_DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(!spin_is_locked(&lock->wait_lock));
> + lockdep_assert_held(&lock->wait_lock);

I think it's a good idea to replace debug usage of spin_is_locked() with
calls to lockdep, but I wonder whether that means that DEBUG_MUTEXES should
select LOCKDEP so that we don't lose coverage?

What do you think?

Will

2018-10-09 13:41:09

by Paul E. McKenney

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/16] locking/mutex: Replace spin_is_locked() with lockdep

On Tue, Oct 09, 2018 at 01:18:10PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 02, 2018 at 10:38:58PM -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 <[email protected]>
> > Cc: Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]>
> > Cc: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
> > Cc: Will Deacon <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > kernel/locking/mutex-debug.c | 4 ++--
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/locking/mutex-debug.c b/kernel/locking/mutex-debug.c
> > index 9aa713629387..771d4ca96dda 100644
> > --- a/kernel/locking/mutex-debug.c
> > +++ b/kernel/locking/mutex-debug.c
> > @@ -36,7 +36,7 @@ void debug_mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock, struct mutex_waiter *waiter)
> >
> > void debug_mutex_wake_waiter(struct mutex *lock, struct mutex_waiter *waiter)
> > {
> > - SMP_DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(!spin_is_locked(&lock->wait_lock));
> > + lockdep_assert_held(&lock->wait_lock);
> > DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(list_empty(&lock->wait_list));
> > DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(waiter->magic != waiter);
> > DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(list_empty(&waiter->list));
> > @@ -51,7 +51,7 @@ void debug_mutex_free_waiter(struct mutex_waiter *waiter)
> > void debug_mutex_add_waiter(struct mutex *lock, struct mutex_waiter *waiter,
> > struct task_struct *task)
> > {
> > - SMP_DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(!spin_is_locked(&lock->wait_lock));
> > + lockdep_assert_held(&lock->wait_lock);
>
> I think it's a good idea to replace debug usage of spin_is_locked() with
> calls to lockdep, but I wonder whether that means that DEBUG_MUTEXES should
> select LOCKDEP so that we don't lose coverage?
>
> What do you think?

Makes sense to me!

But given that this was accepted into -tip, I have dropped it from my tree.

Thanx, Paul

2018-10-11 02:40:44

by Martin K. Petersen

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/16] scsi: Replace spin_is_locked() with lockdep

Lance,

> 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().

Applied to 4.20/scsi-queue, thank you!

--
Martin K. Petersen Oracle Linux Engineering

2018-10-13 00:12:16

by Brown, Aaron F

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: RE: [PATCH 05/16] igbvf: Replace spin_is_locked() with lockdep

> From: [email protected] [mailto:netdev-
> [email protected]] On Behalf Of Lance Roy
> Sent: Tuesday, October 2, 2018 10:39 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Cc: Paul E. McKenney <[email protected]>; Lance Roy
> <[email protected]>; Kirsher, Jeffrey T <[email protected]>; David
> S. Miller <[email protected]>; [email protected];
> [email protected]
> Subject: [PATCH 05/16] igbvf: Replace spin_is_locked() with lockdep
>
> 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 <[email protected]>
> Cc: Jeff Kirsher <[email protected]>
> Cc: "David S. Miller" <[email protected]>
> Cc: [email protected]
> Cc: <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igbvf/mbx.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>

Tested-by: Aaron Brown <[email protected]>

2018-11-02 18:46:50

by Christoffer Dall

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: Re: [PATCH 16/16] KVM: arm/arm64: vgic: Replace spin_is_locked() with lockdep

On Tue, Oct 02, 2018 at 10:39:02PM -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 <[email protected]>
> Cc: Christoffer Dall <[email protected]>
> Cc: Marc Zyngier <[email protected]>
> Cc: Eric Auger <[email protected]>
> Cc: [email protected]
> Cc: <[email protected]>

Acked-by: Christoffer Dall <[email protected]>

> ---
> virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic.c | 12 ++++++------
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic.c b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic.c
> index 7cfdfbc910e0..50e25438fb3c 100644
> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic.c
> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic.c
> @@ -196,7 +196,7 @@ void vgic_irq_set_phys_active(struct vgic_irq *irq, bool active)
> */
> static struct kvm_vcpu *vgic_target_oracle(struct vgic_irq *irq)
> {
> - DEBUG_SPINLOCK_BUG_ON(!spin_is_locked(&irq->irq_lock));
> + lockdep_assert_held(&irq->irq_lock);
>
> /* If the interrupt is active, it must stay on the current vcpu */
> if (irq->active)
> @@ -273,7 +273,7 @@ static void vgic_sort_ap_list(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> {
> struct vgic_cpu *vgic_cpu = &vcpu->arch.vgic_cpu;
>
> - DEBUG_SPINLOCK_BUG_ON(!spin_is_locked(&vgic_cpu->ap_list_lock));
> + lockdep_assert_held(&vgic_cpu->ap_list_lock);
>
> list_sort(NULL, &vgic_cpu->ap_list_head, vgic_irq_cmp);
> }
> @@ -311,7 +311,7 @@ bool vgic_queue_irq_unlock(struct kvm *kvm, struct vgic_irq *irq,
> {
> struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu;
>
> - DEBUG_SPINLOCK_BUG_ON(!spin_is_locked(&irq->irq_lock));
> + lockdep_assert_held(&irq->irq_lock);
>
> retry:
> vcpu = vgic_target_oracle(irq);
> @@ -702,7 +702,7 @@ static inline void vgic_fold_lr_state(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> static inline void vgic_populate_lr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> struct vgic_irq *irq, int lr)
> {
> - DEBUG_SPINLOCK_BUG_ON(!spin_is_locked(&irq->irq_lock));
> + lockdep_assert_held(&irq->irq_lock);
>
> if (kvm_vgic_global_state.type == VGIC_V2)
> vgic_v2_populate_lr(vcpu, irq, lr);
> @@ -736,7 +736,7 @@ static int compute_ap_list_depth(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
>
> *multi_sgi = false;
>
> - DEBUG_SPINLOCK_BUG_ON(!spin_is_locked(&vgic_cpu->ap_list_lock));
> + lockdep_assert_held(&vgic_cpu->ap_list_lock);
>
> list_for_each_entry(irq, &vgic_cpu->ap_list_head, ap_list) {
> int w;
> @@ -761,7 +761,7 @@ static void vgic_flush_lr_state(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> bool multi_sgi;
> u8 prio = 0xff;
>
> - DEBUG_SPINLOCK_BUG_ON(!spin_is_locked(&vgic_cpu->ap_list_lock));
> + lockdep_assert_held(&vgic_cpu->ap_list_lock);
>
> count = compute_ap_list_depth(vcpu, &multi_sgi);
> if (count > kvm_vgic_global_state.nr_lr || multi_sgi)
> --
> 2.19.0
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

2018-11-02 19:43:18

by Paul E. McKenney

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: Re: [PATCH 16/16] KVM: arm/arm64: vgic: Replace spin_is_locked() with lockdep

On Fri, Nov 02, 2018 at 07:45:33PM +0100, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 02, 2018 at 10:39:02PM -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 <[email protected]>
> > Cc: Christoffer Dall <[email protected]>
> > Cc: Marc Zyngier <[email protected]>
> > Cc: Eric Auger <[email protected]>
> > Cc: [email protected]
> > Cc: <[email protected]>
>
> Acked-by: Christoffer Dall <[email protected]>

Applied, thank you!

Thanx, Paul

> > ---
> > virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic.c | 12 ++++++------
> > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic.c b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic.c
> > index 7cfdfbc910e0..50e25438fb3c 100644
> > --- a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic.c
> > +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic.c
> > @@ -196,7 +196,7 @@ void vgic_irq_set_phys_active(struct vgic_irq *irq, bool active)
> > */
> > static struct kvm_vcpu *vgic_target_oracle(struct vgic_irq *irq)
> > {
> > - DEBUG_SPINLOCK_BUG_ON(!spin_is_locked(&irq->irq_lock));
> > + lockdep_assert_held(&irq->irq_lock);
> >
> > /* If the interrupt is active, it must stay on the current vcpu */
> > if (irq->active)
> > @@ -273,7 +273,7 @@ static void vgic_sort_ap_list(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > {
> > struct vgic_cpu *vgic_cpu = &vcpu->arch.vgic_cpu;
> >
> > - DEBUG_SPINLOCK_BUG_ON(!spin_is_locked(&vgic_cpu->ap_list_lock));
> > + lockdep_assert_held(&vgic_cpu->ap_list_lock);
> >
> > list_sort(NULL, &vgic_cpu->ap_list_head, vgic_irq_cmp);
> > }
> > @@ -311,7 +311,7 @@ bool vgic_queue_irq_unlock(struct kvm *kvm, struct vgic_irq *irq,
> > {
> > struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu;
> >
> > - DEBUG_SPINLOCK_BUG_ON(!spin_is_locked(&irq->irq_lock));
> > + lockdep_assert_held(&irq->irq_lock);
> >
> > retry:
> > vcpu = vgic_target_oracle(irq);
> > @@ -702,7 +702,7 @@ static inline void vgic_fold_lr_state(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > static inline void vgic_populate_lr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> > struct vgic_irq *irq, int lr)
> > {
> > - DEBUG_SPINLOCK_BUG_ON(!spin_is_locked(&irq->irq_lock));
> > + lockdep_assert_held(&irq->irq_lock);
> >
> > if (kvm_vgic_global_state.type == VGIC_V2)
> > vgic_v2_populate_lr(vcpu, irq, lr);
> > @@ -736,7 +736,7 @@ static int compute_ap_list_depth(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> >
> > *multi_sgi = false;
> >
> > - DEBUG_SPINLOCK_BUG_ON(!spin_is_locked(&vgic_cpu->ap_list_lock));
> > + lockdep_assert_held(&vgic_cpu->ap_list_lock);
> >
> > list_for_each_entry(irq, &vgic_cpu->ap_list_head, ap_list) {
> > int w;
> > @@ -761,7 +761,7 @@ static void vgic_flush_lr_state(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > bool multi_sgi;
> > u8 prio = 0xff;
> >
> > - DEBUG_SPINLOCK_BUG_ON(!spin_is_locked(&vgic_cpu->ap_list_lock));
> > + lockdep_assert_held(&vgic_cpu->ap_list_lock);
> >
> > count = compute_ap_list_depth(vcpu, &multi_sgi);
> > if (count > kvm_vgic_global_state.nr_lr || multi_sgi)
> > --
> > 2.19.0
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
>