On 6/4/24 15:23, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > There is no direct RCU counterpart to lockdep_assert_irqs_disabled() > and friends. Although it is possible to construct them, it would > be more convenient to have the following lockdep assertions: > > lockdep_assert_in_rcu_read_lock() > lockdep_assert_in_rcu_read_lock_bh() > lockdep_assert_in_rcu_read_lock_sched() > lockdep_assert_in_rcu_reader() > > This commit therefore creates them. I'm looking at some downstream code that is trying to become upstream compliant, and currently that code uses: RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(!rcu_read_lock_held(), "some message"); It seems like this would be a good use of one of these helper functions, but I'm shocked to see that no upstream code is using them yet. Is there a reason to not use these helpers? /jeff
