On Fri 15 Feb 2019 at 22:35, Cong Wang <xiyou.wangc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 12:56 AM Vlad Buslov <vla...@mellanox.com> wrote:
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING
>> +static inline bool lockdep_tcf_chain_is_locked(struct tcf_chain *chain)
>> +{
>> + return lockdep_is_held(&chain->filter_chain_lock);
>> +}
>> +#else
>> +static inline bool lockdep_tcf_chain_is_locked(struct tcf_block *chain)
>> +{
>> + return true;
>> +}
>> +#endif /* #ifdef CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING */
>> +
>> +#define tcf_chain_dereference(p, chain)
>> \
>> + rcu_dereference_protected(p, lockdep_tcf_chain_is_locked(chain))
>
>
> Are you sure you need this #ifdef CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING?
> rcu_dereference_protected() should already test CONFIG_PROVE_RCU.
>
> Ditto for tcf_proto_dereference().
I implemented these macro same way as rtnl_dereference() is implemented,
which they are intended to substitute.
After removing them I get following compilation error with
CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING disabled:
./include/net/sch_generic.h: In function ‘lockdep_tcf_chain_is_locked’:
./include/net/sch_generic.h:404:9: error: implicit declaration of function
‘lockdep_is_held’; did you mean ‘lockdep_rtnl_is_held’?
[-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
return lockdep_is_held(&chain->filter_chain_lock);
^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
lockdep_rtnl_is_held
