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
