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;
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] lockdep: add lockdep_assert_not_held()
To:     Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.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,
        Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
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>
 <eb819e72fb2d897e603654d44aeda8c6f337453f.camel@sipsolutions.net>
From:   Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
Message-ID: <c9293180-3eba-a5f3-b34e-b44ebdd60077@linuxfoundation.org>
Date:   Mon, 22 Feb 2021 13:51:57 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.6.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <eb819e72fb2d897e603654d44aeda8c6f337453f.camel@sipsolutions.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 2/15/21 9:10 AM, Johannes Berg wrote:
> 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 */
> };
> 
> :)
> 


Thank you both. Picking this back up. Will send v2 incorporating
your comments and suggestions.

thanks,
-- Shuah