Re: [PATCH v4 00/20] Support Clang context analysis for NVMe host drivers

On Tue, 28 Jul 2026 at 19:41, Keith Busch <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2026 at 05:24:01PM +0530, Nilay Shroff wrote:
> > Marco Elver (1):
> >   list: Permit context-unguarded access with list_empty_careful()
> >
> > Nilay Shroff (19):
> >   list: introduce LIST_HEAD_GUARDED
> >   nvme: update nvme_passthru_end() signature
> >   nvme: add context annotations for nvme_passthru_{start|stop}
> >   nvme: add context annotations for nvme_ns_head::srcu
> >   nvme: remove redundant initialization of nvme_ns_head::requeue_list
> >   nvme: add context annotations for nvme_ns_head::requeue_list
> >   nvme: add context annotations for nvme_ns_head::current_path
> >   nvme: add context annotations for nvme_dev::shutdown_lock
> >   nvme: remove redundant initialization of delayed_removal_secs
> >   nvme: add context annotations for nvme_subsystem::lock
> >   nvme: add context annotations for nvme_ctrl::ana_lock
> >   nvme: add context annotations for nvme_subsystems_lock
> >   nvme: add context annotations in fabric.c
> >   nvme: add context annotations for nvme_queue::sq_lock
> >   nvme: add context annotations in rdma.c
> >   nvme: fix context analysis warning in rdma.c
> >   nvme: add context annotations in tcp.c
> >   nvme: fix context analysis warning in tcp.c
> >   nvme: enable context analysis support for nvme host driver
> >
> >  drivers/nvme/host/Makefile    |  1 +
> >  drivers/nvme/host/core.c      | 14 ++++++++---
> >  drivers/nvme/host/fabrics.c   |  4 ++--
> >  drivers/nvme/host/ioctl.c     |  2 +-
> >  drivers/nvme/host/multipath.c |  9 +++++--
> >  drivers/nvme/host/nvme.h      | 44 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
> >  drivers/nvme/host/pci.c       | 22 ++++++++++++++----
> >  drivers/nvme/host/rdma.c      | 25 ++++++++++++--------
> >  drivers/nvme/host/tcp.c       | 15 ++++++++----
> >  include/linux/list.h          |  9 +++++++
>
> Looks good to me.
>
> It doesn't look like there's a single source for updating list.h, so any
> concern with taking this series through the nvme tree?

I think that's fine; conflicts should appear in -next, but I don't see any yet.