From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-alma10-1.taild15c8.ts.net [100.103.45.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 59EC14078F9; Tue, 15 Sep 2026 03:26:07 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1789442770; cv=none; b=hB4chTrWDBow6IbgD/XJht7cV2cNCjqflDZUvNlt0HT6l4mSi2ePZAxVuFvHtOOSb4qqyiXZomP+XgXRHxEKEMOa/eU/7pS4TgZMPR4Z8HtWB8FvS/E0lJysh1MgDyDS2a3P/enqlh7W7cnlWYDuyh8mnJIMBIAY6MkLyWZ8Ucs= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1789442770; c=relaxed/simple; bh=GcspyUu6yxD43Q4qIfDDpvn6AgdLU0M9g5Ba2Pt/Ud4=; h=From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Date: Message-Id; b=Dsn+ngEVRoHPCYqk3tvXUQwoR+PnPs1863EN26wZ4wKy6XnGLGSwpQWiDoz0zP8i5LtG9KS6aL9PrXQEyOLrPBYmrfx9300c+3wFt384ESq7AAz76pO2vEbWh01BblTH3kaGzSOwMC81t56KdwwMRq/ge9kT2wYjlQfW7luz7OM= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=SSaEU3i4; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="SSaEU3i4" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DEDE51F0089F; Tue, 15 Sep 2026 03:26:06 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1789442767; bh=GcspyUu6yxD43Q4qIfDDpvn6AgdLU0M9g5Ba2Pt/Ud4=; h=From:Subject:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Date; b=SSaEU3i44KTuTmuzbU3EJpUbCUd6UDN1wa37EKJTtQqMkKencRaWHY8YBLFEvMfcO VXBrh8e1YvqqcrjC48wwz160MXja54QGrwnRp3GeikpEA25dFLXAchRzjTX8EMTDto dG/1K9cTPuPkNPl7nQGZ9/bfPsELIHb2Vpprv2wg0ui9tG7eKdl2OwbLi/ygh1KlbI MJlE0FMqYvHw6EOBBHX2j1Se7A8Jhc7ZLNqGPDgxo+Mz8B+9MUgGpGnDlY1o4fh40P 2bO1zQ18qxQwteyoeyyNEabnHcQeOiTW5GKl39MD2A38X8I12ceIM/+xb7a73YKcwg UCUMUUpnpfWhQ== From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 16/17] rcu: assert static storage for RCU sync and SRCU definitions Reply-To: sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev To: "Yury Norov" Cc: "Michael S. Tsirkin" , "Eugenio Perez" , virtualization@lists.linux.dev, linux-rt-devel@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20260915031334.1194975-11-ynorov@nvidia.com> References: <20260915030336.1192299-1-ynorov@nvidia.com> <20260915031334.1194975-11-ynorov@nvidia.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2026 03:26:06 +0000 Message-Id: <20260915032606.DEDE51F0089F@smtp.kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: > DEFINE_RCU_SYNC() contains a statically initialized wait queue. SRCU > static definitions similarly rely on persistent lockdep keys and, in > Tiny SRCU, a statically initialized work item. >=20 > Add ASSERT_STATIC_STORAGE() to DEFINE_RCU_SYNC(), both Tree SRCU > __DEFINE_SRCU() variants and Tiny SRCU's common DEFINE_SRCU() declaration. > This covers the non-static FAST and FAST_UPDOWN wrappers too. Tiny SRCU's > explicitly static declarations already enforce the required duration. > The existing per-CPU restrictions on Tree SRCU declarations still apply. >=20 > Assisted-by: OpenAI Codex > Signed-off-by: Yury Norov Sashiko has reviewed this patch and found no issues. It looks great! --=20 Sashiko AI review =C2=B7 https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260915030336.1192= 299-1-ynorov@nvidia.com?part=3D16