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;
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cfg80211: Pass lockdep expression to RCU lists
To:     Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>,
        Amol Grover <frextrite@gmail.com>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Cc:     linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linuxfoundation.org,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
        Madhuparna Bhowmik <madhuparnabhowmik10@gmail.com>,
        "Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
References: <20200219091102.10709-1-frextrite@gmail.com>
 <ff8a005c68e512cb3f338b7381853e6b3a3ab293.camel@sipsolutions.net>
 <407d6295-6990-4ef6-7d36-e08a942607c8@broadcom.com>
 <855dec1f598d8b43400089cd0c5a7ac9b3533fc7.camel@sipsolutions.net>
From:   Arend Van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@broadcom.com>
Message-ID: <795b0dd6-23e7-8780-7cde-cf309f08109f@broadcom.com>
Date:   Wed, 19 Feb 2020 22:33:29 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <855dec1f598d8b43400089cd0c5a7ac9b3533fc7.camel@sipsolutions.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 2/19/2020 10:29 PM, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Wed, 2020-02-19 at 22:27 +0100, Arend Van Spriel wrote:
>> On 2/19/2020 10:13 AM, Johannes Berg wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2020-02-19 at 14:41 +0530, Amol Grover wrote:
>>>>    
>>>> -	WARN_ON_ONCE(!rcu_read_lock_held() && !lockdep_rtnl_is_held());
>>>> -
>>>> -	list_for_each_entry_rcu(pos, &rdev->sched_scan_req_list, list) {
>>>> +	list_for_each_entry_rcu(pos, &rdev->sched_scan_req_list, list,
>>>> +				lockdep_rtnl_is_held()) {
>>>
>>> Huh, I didn't even know you _could_ do that :)
>>
>> Me neither ;-). Above you are removing the WARN_ON_ONCE() entirely.
>> Would it not be good to keep the WARN_ON_ONCE() with only the
>> !rcu_read_lock_held() check.
> 
> Not needed, the macro expansion will already contain
> rcu_read_lock_any_held() just like in all the other cases where you pass
> a lockdep condition to RCU helpers.

Ah, yes. I see it in __list_check_rcu().

Thanks,
Arend