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:   Fri, 13 Mar 2020 09:22:10 -0300
From:   Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>
To:     Souptick Joarder <jrdr.linux@gmail.com>
Cc:     jglisse@redhat.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/hmm.c : Remove additional check for
 lockdep_assert_held()
Message-ID: <20200313122210.GB31668@ziepe.ca>
References: <1584065460-22205-1-git-send-email-jrdr.linux@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1584065460-22205-1-git-send-email-jrdr.linux@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 07:41:00AM +0530, Souptick Joarder wrote:
> walk_page_range() already has a check for lockdep_assert_held().
> So additional check for lockdep_assert_held() can be removed from
> hmm_range_fault().

Is there a reason why you think this redundancy is bad?

IMHO it makes it easier to understand the API contract if key top
level APIs have their assumptions coded in lockdep.

Jason