Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Tue, 17 Jul 2018 17:09:08 +0200
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Jason Baron <jbaron@akamai.com>, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: waitqueue lockdep annotation V3
Message-ID: <20180717150908.GA22502@lst.de>
References: <20171214152344.6880-1-hch@lst.de> <20180712191753.fvk2qersdvhcoqzp@linux-r8p5> <20180717142437.GA20286@lst.de> <20180717150439.GY2476@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180717150439.GY2476@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 05:04:39PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 04:24:37PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 12:17:53PM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> > > On Thu, 14 Dec 2017, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hi all,
> > >>
> > >> this series adds a strategic lockdep_assert_held to __wake_up_common
> > >> to ensure callers really do hold the wait_queue_head lock when calling
> > >> the unlocked wake_up variants.  It turns out epoll did not do this
> > >> for a fairly common path (hit all the time by systemd during bootup),
> > >> so the second patch fixed this instance as well.
> > >
> > > I ran into these changes because of patch 1 getting rid of ep->lock. Is
> > > there any reason why this series was never picked up?
> > 
> > I'd love to see this merged, but I never heard back about it.
> 
> Seeing how it touched fs bits, I was expecting this to go through the
> vfs tree; was that not the intended target?

I don't really care which way it goes, although tip is more reliably
at picking up changes than the vfs tree..