Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2017 14:29:43 -0700
From: Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@linux.intel.com>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@linux.intel.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
        Matthew Wilcox <mawilcox@microsoft.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm: Make follow_pte_pmd an inline
Message-ID: <20171221212943.GB9087@linux.intel.com>
References: <20171219165823.24243-1-willy@infradead.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20171219165823.24243-1-willy@infradead.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.1 (2017-09-22)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 699
Lines: 17

On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 08:58:22AM -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> From: Matthew Wilcox <mawilcox@microsoft.com>
> 
> The one user of follow_pte_pmd (dax) emits a sparse warning because
> it doesn't know that follow_pte_pmd conditionally returns with the
> pte/pmd locked.  The required annotation is already there; it's just
> in the wrong file.

Can you help me find the required annotation that is already there but in the
wrong file?

This does seem to quiet a lockep warning in fs/dax.c, but I think we still
have a related one in mm/memory.c:

mm/memory.c:4204:5: warning: context imbalance in '__follow_pte_pmd' - different lock contexts for basic block

Should we deal with this one as well?