On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 5:52 PM Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 07:41:00AM +0530, Souptick Joarder wrote: > > walk_page_range() already has a check for lockdep_assert_held(). > > So additional check for lockdep_assert_held() can be removed from > > hmm_range_fault(). > > Is there a reason why you think this redundancy is bad? Other than removing an extra check , I don't have any other strong reason to support this patch. > > IMHO it makes it easier to understand the API contract if key top > level APIs have their assumptions coded in lockdep. Ok, I will drop this patch. Sorry for the noise.
