Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.31 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.31;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20231007203543.1377452-1-willy@infradead.org>
References: <20231007203543.1377452-1-willy@infradead.org>
From:   Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@gmail.com>
Date:   Sun, 8 Oct 2023 22:31:48 +0200
Message-ID: <CAGudoHEOTXu_53Cj+6XrS6x=8ouOiiC8bRnerYg39ZjWEoGvNg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] Remove the XFS mrlock
To:     "Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@infradead.org>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, Chandan Babu R <chandan.babu@oracle.com>,
        "Darrick J . Wong" <djwong@kernel.org>, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On 10/7/23, Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) <willy@infradead.org> wrote:
> I'm sympathetic to "this will warn twice and dump much the same
> information if you have lockdep enabled".  Perhaps somebody has a
> suggestion for not doing that?
>

Well the obvious idea is that lockdep could provide a macro indicating
what's up.

Then you would:
static inline void rwsem_assert_held(const struct rw_semaphore *sem)
{
        if (lockdep_works)
               lockdep_assert_held(sem);
        else
               __rwsem_assert_held(sem);
}

Am I missing something? If this is not feasible to achieve, then the
proposed routines need a comment justifying the state.

-- 
Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik gmail.com>