Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <164610292916.2682974.12924748003366352335.stgit@dwillia2-desk3.amr.corp.intel.com>
 <164610294604.2682974.11169622387063183603.stgit@dwillia2-desk3.amr.corp.intel.com>
 <20220309182217.00006bf5@Huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <20220309182217.00006bf5@Huawei.com>
From:   Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Date:   Wed, 9 Mar 2022 19:54:17 -0800
Message-ID: <CAPcyv4jJyRZG70+P-Y8_W_MbSW42wZ=SN8DbJvUL4Q6Y7kDkvQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/11] cxl/core: Remove cxl_device_lock()
To:     Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>
Cc:     Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Rafael J Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
        Alison Schofield <alison.schofield@intel.com>,
        Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@intel.com>,
        Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com>,
        Ben Widawsky <ben.widawsky@intel.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-cxl@vger.kernel.org, Linux NVDIMM <nvdimm@lists.linux.dev>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 10:22 AM Jonathan Cameron
<Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 28 Feb 2022 18:49:06 -0800
> Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> wrote:
>
> > In preparation for moving lockdep_mutex nested lock acquisition into the
> > core, remove the cxl_device_lock() wrapper, but preserve
> > cxl_lock_class() that will be used to inform the core of the subsystem's
> > lock ordering rules.
> >
> > Cc: Alison Schofield <alison.schofield@intel.com>
> > Cc: Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@intel.com>
> > Cc: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com>
> > Cc: Ben Widawsky <ben.widawsky@intel.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
>
> Makes sense, but perhaps the description should call out that after
> this patch it's not just a wrapper remove, but rather the lock
> checking is totally gone for now?

Sure, that's worth a note.

>
> Otherwise this looks fine to me. FWIW
> Reviewed-by: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>