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: <165055518776.3745911.9346998911322224736.stgit@dwillia2-desk3.amr.corp.intel.com>
 <165055519869.3745911.10162603933337340370.stgit@dwillia2-desk3.amr.corp.intel.com>
 <YmNBJBTxUCvDHMbw@iweiny-desk3> <CAPcyv4jtNgfjWLyu6MtBAjwUiqe2qEBW802AzZZeg2gZ_wU9AQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPcyv4hhD5t-qm_c_=bRjbJZFg9Mjkzbvu_2MEJB87fKy3hh-g@mail.gmail.com> <20220425103307.GI2731@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
In-Reply-To: <20220425103307.GI2731@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
From:   Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Date:   Mon, 25 Apr 2022 09:05:53 -0700
Message-ID: <CAPcyv4i9ONW5w6p2P+E5rpw25_kmzpYf6SbmRM4+eP5hK4si-A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/8] cxl/acpi: Add root device lockdep validation
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com>, linux-cxl@vger.kernel.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 Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 3:33 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 10:27:52AM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
>
> > ...so I'm going to drop it and just add a comment about the
> > expectations. As Peter said there's already a multitude of ways to
> > cause false positive / negative results with lockdep so this is just
> > one more area where one needs to be careful and understand the lock
> > context they might be overriding.
>
> One safe-guard might be to check the class you're overriding is indeed
> __no_validate__, and WARN if not. Then the unconditional reset is
> conistent.
>
> Then, if/when, that WARN ever triggers you can revisit all this.

Ok, that does seem to need a dummy definition of lockdep_match_class()
in the CONFIG_LOCKDEP=n case, but that seems worth it to me for the
sanity check.