Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-107758-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2024 16:01:26 +0000
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
	Clark Williams <williams@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Locking: Let PREEMPT_RT compile again with new rwsem
 asserts.
Message-ID: <Zfm21jBMZIci3P6P@casper.infradead.org>
References: <20240319070550.ws_uO21-@linutronix.de>
 <ZfmVPid-d7cpf6Yt@casper.infradead.org>
 <20240319141506.DUd9NKl4@linutronix.de>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20240319141506.DUd9NKl4@linutronix.de>

On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 03:15:06PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2024-03-19 13:38:06 [+0000], Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 08:05:50AM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > > -static inline void rwsem_assert_held_write_nolockdep(const struct rw_semaphore *sem)
> > > +static __always_inline bool rwsem_held_write(const struct rw_semaphore *sem)
> > 
> > The locking maintainers were very clear that this predicate Should Not
> > Exist.  It encourages people to write bad code.  Assertions only!
> 
> What do you refer to? The inline vs __always_inline or
> rwsem_held_write() should not exists and it should invoke directly
> rw_base_is_write_locked()?

I see Waiman already gave you the substantial answer ... but why did you
change inline to __always_inline?