Received-SPF: softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org does not designate 23.128.96.19 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.19;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220208184208.79303-1-namhyung@kernel.org> <20220208184208.79303-6-namhyung@kernel.org>
 <87y22lp4xx.fsf@intel.com> <CAM9d7ci0By5zioo+52+14RuFrTqZfzbupJuP-908HhYB2Ovc9A@mail.gmail.com>
 <87iltonoaa.fsf@intel.com> <20220209112703.1679e48b@gandalf.local.home>
In-Reply-To: <20220209112703.1679e48b@gandalf.local.home>
From:   Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
Date:   Wed, 9 Feb 2022 11:28:50 -0800
Message-ID: <CAM9d7cg56onNLfpUwMDDJaMpJiYpwgk=UT7jFF5rhH0U2dH-Pw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/12] drm/i915: Protect lockdep functions with #ifdef
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc:     Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
        Radoslaw Burny <rburny@google.com>,
        Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com>,
        Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>,
        Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com>,
        intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

Hello,

On Wed, Feb 9, 2022 at 8:27 AM Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 09 Feb 2022 15:49:01 +0200
> Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> > > Because I want to use the lockdep annotation for other purposes.
> > > But the workqueue lockdep_map was defined under LOCKDEP
> > > only.  Please see the description in the cover letter.
> > >
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220208184208.79303-1-namhyung@kernel.org/
> >
> > So lockdep_init_map() might still be there and build just fine for
> > CONFIG_LOCKDEP=n, but now we're actually required to wrap all call sites
> > in #ifdefs depending on the purpose? I'm not convinced yet.

Because work_struct.lockdep_map is there only if CONFIG_LOCKDEP=y.

>
> I addressed this already. I suggested to add a "raw" variant that turns to
> a nop when LOCKDEP is not enabled. That is, for those locations that are
> only for working with LOCKDEP, the call will be:
>
>         lockdep_init_map_raw()
>
> This will differentiate the locations that are for just lockdep and those
> that are for both lockdep and tracing.

Yep, this should be fine if it's actually defined on CONFIG_LOCKDEP=y.

Thanks,
Namhyung