Re: [PATCH rcu 1/9] rcu: Add lockdep_assert_in_rcu_read_lock() and friends

[Jeff Johnson <jeff.johnson@oss.qualcomm.com>]

On 2/20/2025 2:04 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 20, 2025 at 11:38:14AM -0800, Jeff Johnson wrote:
>> 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?
> 
> In cases where there is no additional useful information that can be
> placed in "some message", the new helpers should be just fine.

Thanks for the confirmation, Paul!

/jeff