On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 10:20:25PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > We need to make sure implementations don't cheat and don't have a > possible schedule/blocking point deeply burried where review can't > catch it. > > I'm not sure whether this is the best way to make sure all the > might_sleep() callsites trigger, and it's a bit ugly in the code flow. > But it gets the job done. > > Inspired by an i915 patch series which did exactly that, because the > rules haven't been entirely clear to us. I thought lockdep already was able to detect: spin_lock() might_sleep(); spin_unlock() Am I mistaken? If yes, couldn't this patch just inject a dummy lockdep spinlock? Jason
