From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [192.198.163.8]) (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 1C3324C6517; Wed, 30 Sep 2026 12:08:05 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=192.198.163.8 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1790770087; cv=none; b=tABbv9uQJ/otmY9cqVpiZuttjACDH3vOj7NlZKrPQetZtQNA3cn+0pCivlyfRTIhQm00qx0j5wfIydgEwXtv+k2kfkHtT1GuFWKTg2eOlLsS6TQ7jNoG8+2lu560gkpqQ2fFkfyFpXLKQ68Uw89/x6aBleJg5mWO7xvNmrksbEg= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1790770087; c=relaxed/simple; bh=s3veLkw15cvhUhnEBJXJZXwWg8VpGlLtppPFAMhlK34=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=uSnvS/ZqbIJzw8i8syYpkfk88tJR60NsfcJI4cyncUJD+gUqQTGVRzv0hIBm41O/uAtyUmmmU3Ij7IunAaGmJSNndQ8Cxh6fTlak6hkAUIOarU7t66IsnX8Vyngt42Yu/lRZZ4CzBRMdIrqDP5wXGQ8YlJssCACFhBlTaMHCPR8= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=intel.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=intel.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b=HYpZrWKe; arc=none smtp.client-ip=192.198.163.8 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b="HYpZrWKe" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1790770086; x=1822306086; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=s3veLkw15cvhUhnEBJXJZXwWg8VpGlLtppPFAMhlK34=; b=HYpZrWKeEezWglwm9NKqg8IF/DkXbzw4vE46V4u0COwfGH7CyjiZCFpe siDwOPSjj4KQIIPA2hD2OxpnQYcdZ+Ku5fI4JGeTLX6CRmDbt07j002QE e3t97iyBzyhCY8BouqxsYN31xyUaaep/KRJ9YRidLXa343Bg4Pmx4qKTw N1aLJyFOcQI1lznSgevOaQIz3h8ATgYucobQ7pIsJbyEH+9hsB+kdi8fp H/bAQ0Xrier0O8YnMLLQSy38YNLa8O5BCUiw90XSe6LGhir5AqrIpD+Cp MR8cQiAXTp3RACaQ3v615BNPpe/wtr2i9ujP7wUb1/452LMzTGk/hZ5Ej A==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: YPdAit9+SzaBymt4weKTwg== X-CSE-MsgGUID: Si7AqTqgSYaZNvwNhVoCUA== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6800,10657,11920"; a="108993522" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.27,132,1787036400"; d="scan'208";a="108993522" Received: from fmviesa008.fm.intel.com ([10.60.135.148]) by fmvoesa102.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 30 Sep 2026 05:08:05 -0700 X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: dOC47gNyTP6W6exbk0t4mA== X-CSE-MsgGUID: YSr0FDtPTheWLXoo0Qsj5g== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.27,132,1787036400"; d="scan'208";a="275805043" Received: from spandruv-desk1.amr.corp.intel.com (HELO localhost) ([10.245.245.137]) by fmviesa008-auth.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 30 Sep 2026 05:08:02 -0700 Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2026 15:08:00 +0300 From: Andy Shevchenko To: Rupesh Majhi Cc: Andy Shevchenko , Bill Wendling , David Lechner , Eddie James , Jonathan Cameron , Justin Stitt , Nathan Chancellor , Nick Desaulniers , Nuno =?iso-8859-1?Q?S=E1?= , linux-iio@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, llvm@lists.linux.dev Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 4/4] iio: pressure: dps310: assert the lock at runtime too Message-ID: References: <20260930100158.957977-1-zoone.rupert@gmail.com> <20260930100158.957977-5-zoone.rupert@gmail.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20260930100158.957977-5-zoone.rupert@gmail.com> Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - c/o Alberga Business Park, 6 krs, Bertel Jungin Aukio 5, 02600 Espoo On Wed, Sep 30, 2026 at 01:01:58PM +0300, Rupesh Majhi wrote: > __must_hold() is clang only and does nothing in GCC builds. Add > lockdep_assert_held() next to each, so lockdep catches a missing lock > too. > Suggested-by: Andy Shevchenko Not really, I just explained the difference and asked if lockdep annotations would be also good to have. Otherwise if Jonathan thinks it's fine, I have no objections (and also have no objections on not taking this change). -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko