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:   Wed, 12 Dec 2018 10:09:01 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Derek Basehore <dbasehore@chromium.org>
Cc:     mingo@redhat.com, will.deacon@arm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: RFC [PATCH 1/1] locking/lockdep: Fix nest lock warning on unlock
Message-ID: <20181212090901.GV5289@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20181212022506.171936-1-dbasehore@chromium.org>
 <20181212022506.171936-2-dbasehore@chromium.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20181212022506.171936-2-dbasehore@chromium.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 06:25:06PM -0800, Derek Basehore wrote:
> The function __lock_acquire checks that the nest lock is held passed
> in as an argument. The issue with this is that __lock_acquire is used
> for internal bookkeeping on lock_release. This produces a false
> positive lockdep warning on unlock. Since you explicitly don't need to
> hold the nest lock on unlock, this is an issue.

Who is triggering this?