Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Sun, 14 Feb 2021 18:53:01 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc:     mingo@redhat.com, will@kernel.org, kvalo@codeaurora.org,
        davem@davemloft.net, kuba@kernel.org, ath10k@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] lockdep: add lockdep_assert_not_held()
Message-ID: <YCljfeNr4m5mZa4N@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <cover.1613171185.git.skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
 <37a29c383bff2fb1605241ee6c7c9be3784fb3c6.1613171185.git.skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <37a29c383bff2fb1605241ee6c7c9be3784fb3c6.1613171185.git.skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 04:28:42PM -0700, Shuah Khan wrote:

> +#define lockdep_assert_not_held(l)	do {			\
> +		WARN_ON(debug_locks && lockdep_is_held(l));	\
> +	} while (0)
> +

This thing isn't as straight forward as you might think, but it'll
mostly work.

Notably this thing will misfire when lockdep_off() is employed. It
certainyl needs a comment to explain the subtleties.