On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 5:15 PM Michael Shavit [off-list ref] wrote:
On Wed, Aug 9, 2023 at 9:50 PM Will Deacon [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
Since you're dropping this and relying on the lock being taken higher up
callstack, can we add a lockdep assertion that we do actually hold the
devices_lock, please?
Will do!
I spoke too soon; the point of this change was to remove the
dependency on the arm_smmu_domain, piping the devices_lock would
defeat this. In fact, this section is really depending on the iommu
group lock not the devices_lock.
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel