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;
Message-ID: <eb819e72fb2d897e603654d44aeda8c6f337453f.camel@sipsolutions.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] lockdep: add lockdep_assert_not_held()
From:   Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>, 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
Date:   Mon, 15 Feb 2021 17:10:14 +0100
In-Reply-To: <YCqbehyyeUoL0pPT@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <cover.1613171185.git.skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
         <37a29c383bff2fb1605241ee6c7c9be3784fb3c6.1613171185.git.skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
         <YCljfeNr4m5mZa4N@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
         <20210215104402.GC4507@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
         <79aeb83a288051bd3a2a3f15e5ac42e06f154d48.camel@sipsolutions.net>
         <YCqbehyyeUoL0pPT@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.36.5 (3.36.5-2.fc32) 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 2021-02-15 at 17:04 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 02:12:30PM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > On Mon, 2021-02-15 at 11:44 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > I think something like so will work, but please double check.
> > 
> > Yeah, that looks better.
> > 
> > > +++ b/include/linux/lockdep.h
> > > @@ -294,11 +294,15 @@ extern void lock_unpin_lock(struct lockdep_map *lock, struct pin_cookie);
> > >  
> > >  #define lockdep_depth(tsk)	(debug_locks ? (tsk)->lockdep_depth : 0)
> > >  
> > > -#define lockdep_assert_held(l)	do {				\
> > > -		WARN_ON(debug_locks && !lockdep_is_held(l));	\
> > > +#define lockdep_assert_held(l)	do {					\
> > > +		WARN_ON(debug_locks && lockdep_is_held(l) == 0));	\
> > >  	} while (0)
> > 
> > That doesn't really need to change? It's the same.
> 
> Correct, but I found it more symmetric vs the not implementation below.

Fair enough. One might argue that you should have an

enum lockdep_lock_state {
	LOCK_STATE_NOT_HELD, /* 0 now */
	LOCK_STATE_HELD, /* 1 now */
	LOCK_STATE_UNKNOWN, /* -1 with your patch but might as well be 2 */
};

:)

johannes