On Thu, Sep 5, 2024 at 6:01 PM Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On 9/4/24 3:34 PM, Amit Sunil Dhamne wrote: > > However, I have seen almost 30+ instances of the prior > > method > > (https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240822223717.253433-1-amitsd@xxxxxxxxxx/) > > of registering lockdep key, which is what I followed. > > Many of these examples are for spinlocks. It would be good to have a > variant of spin_lock_init() that does not instantiate a struct > lock_class_key and instead accepts a lock_class_key pointer as argument. > > > However, if that's is not the right way, it brings into question the > > purpose > > of lockdep_set_class() considering I would always and unconditionally use > > __mutex_init() if I want to manage the lockdep class keys myself or > > mutex_init() if I didn't. > What I'm proposing is not a new pattern. There are multiple examples > in the kernel tree of lockdep_register_key() calls followed by a > __mutex_init() call: > > $ git grep -wB3 __mutex_init | grep lockdep_register_key | wc -l > 5 I see pros and cons for both approaches, but I take Bart's as the simpler one. However, since it might be confusing, what I would suggest is to add a respective wrapper to mutex.h and have a non-__ named macro for this case. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
