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: <165055518776.3745911.9346998911322224736.stgit@dwillia2-desk3.amr.corp.intel.com>
 <165055519869.3745911.10162603933337340370.stgit@dwillia2-desk3.amr.corp.intel.com>
 <YmNBJBTxUCvDHMbw@iweiny-desk3>
In-Reply-To: <YmNBJBTxUCvDHMbw@iweiny-desk3>
From:   Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Date:   Fri, 22 Apr 2022 17:08:43 -0700
Message-ID: <CAPcyv4jtNgfjWLyu6MtBAjwUiqe2qEBW802AzZZeg2gZ_wU9AQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/8] cxl/acpi: Add root device lockdep validation
To:     Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com>
Cc:     linux-cxl@vger.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
        Alison Schofield <alison.schofield@intel.com>,
        Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@intel.com>,
        Ben Widawsky <ben.widawsky@intel.com>,
        Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>,
        Linux NVDIMM <nvdimm@lists.linux.dev>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 4:58 PM Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 08:33:18AM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> > The CXL "root" device, ACPI0017, is an attach point for coordinating
> > platform level CXL resources and is the parent device for a CXL port
> > topology tree. As such it has distinct locking rules relative to other
> > CXL subsystem objects, but because it is an ACPI device the lock class
> > is established well before it is given to the cxl_acpi driver.
>
> This final sentence gave me pause because it implied that the device lock class
> was set to something other than no validate.  But I don't see that anywhere in
> the acpi code.  So given that it looks to me like ACPI is just using the
> default no validate class...

Oh, good observation. *If* ACPI had set a custom lock class then
cxl_acpi would need to be careful to restore that ACPI-specific class
and not reset it to "no validate" on exit, or skip setting its own
custom class. However, I think for generic buses like ACPI that feed
devices into other subsystems it likely has little reason to set its
own class. For safety, since device_lock_set_class() is general
purpose, I'll have it emit a debug message and fail if the class is
not "no validate" on entry.

Thanks Ira!