On Thu, Oct 03, 2024 at 11:30:44AM -1000, Tejun Heo wrote: > On Thu, Oct 03, 2024 at 11:22:09AM -1000, Tejun Heo wrote: > > Yeah, that should be spin_lock_irq() for consistency but at the same time it > > doesn't look like anything is actually grabbing that lock (or blkcg->lock > > nesting outside of it) from an IRQ context, so no actual deadlock scenario > > exists and lockdep doesn't trigger. > > Oh, wait, it's not that. blkg_conf_prep() implies queue_lock, so the IRQ is > disabled around it and adding _irq will trigger lockdep. > Ugh... Yeah. Sorry for the noise on this. I've fixed my checker to not print this warning any more. regards, dan carpenter
