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:   Mon, 18 Nov 2019 16:02:40 +0100
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To:     Xiaochen Shen <xiaochen.shen@intel.com>
Cc:     tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, hpa@zytor.com,
        tony.luck@intel.com, fenghua.yu@intel.com,
        reinette.chatre@intel.com, x86@kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, pei.p.jia@intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/resctrl: Fix potential lockdep warning
Message-ID: <20191118150240.GF6363@zn.tnic>
References: <1573079796-11713-1-git-send-email-xiaochen.shen@intel.com>
 <20191113114334.GA1647@zn.tnic>
 <ec0f21ce-17a8-5038-4e69-565a28ca041d@intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ec0f21ce-17a8-5038-4e69-565a28ca041d@intel.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, Nov 17, 2019 at 12:13:20AM +0800, Xiaochen Shen wrote:
> Actually this fix covers all the cases of an audit of the calling paths
> of rdt_last_cmd_{clear,puts,printf}(), to make sure we only have the
> lockdep_assert_held() in places where we are sure that it must be held.

That's kinda what I suggested, isn't it?

All I meant was, not to have a

	rdtgroup_kn_lock_live()

call in the code as this function does *not* unconditionally grab the
rdtgroup_mutex. And then call a function which unconditionally checks
whether the mutex is held.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette