On Wed 2020-01-15 06:49:03, Qian Cai wrote: > > > > On Jan 15, 2020, at 4:52 AM, Petr Mladek <pmladek@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > I could understand that Michal is against hack in -mm code that > > would just hide a false positive warning. > > Well, I don’t have any confidence to say everything this patch is > trying to fix is false positives. You look at this from a wrong angle. AFAIK, all lockdep reports pasted in the below mentioned thread were false positives. Now, this patch complicates an already complicated -mm code to hide the warning and fix theoretical problems. I suggest to disable lockdep around the safe allocation in the console initialization code. Then we will see if there are other locations that trigger this lockdep warning. It is trivial and will not complicate the code because of false positives. > I have been spent the last a few months to research this, so > I don’t feel like to do this again. > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/1570633715.5937.10.camel@xxxxxx/ Have you tried to disable lockdep around the problematic allocation? Have you seen other lockdep reports caused by exactly this printk() in the allocator code? My big problem with this patch is that the commit message does not contain any lockdep report. It will complicate removing the hack when it is not longer needed. Nobody will know what was the exact problem and if it is safe to get removed. I believe that printk() will offload console handling rather sooner than later and this extra logic will not be necessary. Best Regards, Petr
