On Wed, 2017-12-13 at 16:06 +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > On 2017-12-13 16:00:49 [+0200], Joonas Lahtinen wrote: > > On Thu, 2017-11-30 at 16:19 +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > > > The code has an ifdef and uses two functions to either init the bare > > > spinlock or init it and set a lock-class. It is possible to do the same > > > thing without an ifdef. > > > With this patch (in debug case) we first use the "default" lock class > > > which is later overwritten to the supplied one. Without lockdep the set > > > name/class function vanishes. > > > > > > Reported-by: kbuild test robot <fengguang.wu@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > How exactly did kbuild test robot figure this out? > > I fixed it up for RT, then robot found a way to complain about it. Then > I slapped myself for not submitting this patch in the first place. Right, I was kinda wondering if the robot has gained consciuousness and is developing new checks... > > At least according to the source there doesn't seem to be clarity about > > what is the right thing to do, this being just one option. > > I don' think `ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_SPINLOCK' is an option. Especially > since the i915 driver here is the only user in tree doing this kind of > thing. > Then we have lockdep_set_class_and_name() (which I promote here). This > looks like the official way of doing lockdep related things and it has > even more than ten users in tree. I think it be worthwhile to suggest would be the addition of __spin_lock_init where you can pass in the the lockclass and name. Regards, Joonas -- Joonas Lahtinen Open Source Technology Center Intel Corporation _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
