Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Mon, 16 Nov 2020 18:05:47 +0900
From:   Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>
To:     Byungchul Park <max.byungchul.park@gmail.com>
Cc:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, mingo@redhat.com,
        will@kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
        alexander.levin@microsoft.com,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>,
        Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>, duyuyang@gmail.com,
        johannes.berg@intel.com, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
        Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>, willy@infradead.org,
        david@fromorbit.com, Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>,
        bfields@fieldses.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org,
        kernel-team <kernel-team@lge.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Are you good with Lockdep?
Message-ID: <20201116090547.GC26078@X58A-UD3R>
References: <20201111050559.GA24438@X58A-UD3R>
 <20201111105441.GA78848@gmail.com>
 <20201111093609.1bd2b637@gandalf.local.home>
 <87d00jo55p.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
 <20201112081030.GB14554@X58A-UD3R>
 <20201112092612.00a19239@gandalf.local.home>
 <CANrsvRNr=JG=-oyYZxn+AXTMX9Ly4OJB0xY5F2Lmqo+1Q_S4fA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CANrsvRNr=JG=-oyYZxn+AXTMX9Ly4OJB0xY5F2Lmqo+1Q_S4fA@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 11:58:44PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> > > FYI, roughly Lockdep is doing:
> > >
> > >    1. Dependency check
> > >    2. Lock usage correctness check (including RCU)
> > >    3. IRQ related usage correctness check with IRQFLAGS
> > >
> > > 2 and 3 should be there forever which is subtle and have gotten matured.
> > > But 1 is not. I've been talking about 1. But again, it's not about
> > > replacing it right away but having both for a while. I'm gonna try my
> > > best to make it better.
> >
> > And I believe lockdep does handle 1. Perhaps show some tangible use case
> > that you want to cover that you do not believe that lockdep can handle. If
> > lockdep cannot handle it, it will show us where lockdep is lacking. If it
> > can handle it, it will educate you on other ways that lockdep can be
> > helpful in your development ;-)

1) OK. Lockdep might work with trylock well.
2) Definitely Lockdep cannot do what Cross-release was doing.
3) For readlock handling, let me be back later and give you examples. I
   need check current Lockdep code first. But I have to all-stop what
   I'm doing at the moment because of a very big personal issue, which
   is a sad thing.

Sorry for the late response.

Thank you,
Byungchul

> 
> Yes. That's the best thing I can do for all of us. I will.
> 
> I already did exactly the same thing while I was developing cross-release.
> But I'm willing to do it again with the current Lockdep code.
> 
> But not today. It's over mid-night. Good night~
> 
> -- 
> Thanks,
> Byungchul