Lance Roy <ldr...@gmail.com> writes: > lockdep_assert_held() is better suited to checking locking requirements, > since it won't get confused when someone else holds the lock. This is > also a step towards possibly removing spin_is_locked(). > > Signed-off-by: Lance Roy <ldr...@gmail.com> > Cc: "K. Y. Srinivasan" <k...@microsoft.com> > Cc: Haiyang Zhang <haiya...@microsoft.com> > Cc: Stephen Hemminger <sthem...@microsoft.com> > Cc: <de...@linuxdriverproject.org> > --- > drivers/hv/hv_balloon.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/hv/hv_balloon.c b/drivers/hv/hv_balloon.c > index b1b788082793..41631512ae97 100644 > --- a/drivers/hv/hv_balloon.c > +++ b/drivers/hv/hv_balloon.c > @@ -689,7 +689,7 @@ static void hv_page_online_one(struct hv_hotadd_state > *has, struct page *pg) > __online_page_increment_counters(pg); > __online_page_free(pg); > > - WARN_ON_ONCE(!spin_is_locked(&dm_device.ha_lock)); > + lockdep_assert_held(&dm_device.ha_lock); > dm_device.num_pages_onlined++; > }
Reviewed-by: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuzn...@redhat.com> However, lockdep_assert_held() is a no-op when !CONFIG_LOCKDEP but this doesn't really matter: hv_page_online_one() is static and it has only two call sites, both taking the dm_device.ha_lock lock - so the warning may just go away. -- Vitaly
