On Tue, Oct 02, 2018 at 10:38:47PM -0700, Lance Roy wrote:
> lockdep_assert_held() is better suited to checking locking requirements,
> since it won't get confused when someone else holds the lock. This is
> also a step towards possibly removing spin_is_locked().
>
> Signed-off-by: Lance Roy <ldr709@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: <x86@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: <linux-pci@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
I assume you plan to merge the whole series together. I don't object
to that, but I don't know enough to be able to formally ack this.
It would be useful to include a tiny bit more detail in the changelog.
The spin_is_locked() documentation doesn't mention anything about
differences with respect to the lock being held by self vs by someone
else, so I can't tell where the confusion arises.
Bjorn
> ---
> arch/x86/pci/i386.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/pci/i386.c b/arch/x86/pci/i386.c
> index ed4ac215305d..24bb58a007de 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/pci/i386.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/pci/i386.c
> @@ -59,7 +59,7 @@ static struct pcibios_fwaddrmap *pcibios_fwaddrmap_lookup(struct pci_dev *dev)
> {
> struct pcibios_fwaddrmap *map;
>
> - WARN_ON_SMP(!spin_is_locked(&pcibios_fwaddrmap_lock));
> + lockdep_assert_held(&pcibios_fwaddrmap_lock);
>
> list_for_each_entry(map, &pcibios_fwaddrmappings, list)
> if (map->dev == dev)
> --
> 2.19.0
>
