On Thu, 2019-08-01 at 16:43 +0000, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 01, 2019 at 12:40:43PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
>
> > > It does have a lock though, the caller holds it, hence the request
> > > for
> > > the lockdep.
> >
> > You're right, although I think the lockdep annotation can be a
> > separate
> > patch as it's neeeded on more than just the function this patch
> > touches.
>
> Why? This relies on that lock, so it should have the
> lockdep_assert_held assert.
It does, but this patch is about the scheduling while atomic, adding a
lockdep assertion fix is doubling up on fixes in the patch. A separate
patch that addes the lockdep assert to both the bind and unbind calls
makes more sense and just feels cleaner to me.
> If there are more functions with implicit locking theyt they can be
> fixed separately...
--
Doug Ledford <dledford@xxxxxxxxxx>
GPG KeyID: B826A3330E572FDD
Fingerprint = AE6B 1BDA 122B 23B4 265B 1274 B826 A333 0E57 2FDD
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
