Re: [PATCH v2 01/12] aoe: Enable lock context analysis

On 8/3/26 10:54 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On 8/3/26 5:53 AM, Nilay Shroff wrote:
>> As I see, iocq->lock guards iocq->head. So shouldn't we annotate
>> iocq->head with __guarded_by(iocq->lock)? For instance,
>>
>> struct iocq_ktio {
>>      struct list_head head;
>>                  __guarded_by(&lock);
>>      spinlock_t lock;
>> };
> 
> How about integrating the change below into this patch?
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/block/aoe/aoecmd.c b/drivers/block/aoe/aoecmd.c
> index 54c57b9f8894..7ceda4ee4e55 100644
> --- a/drivers/block/aoe/aoecmd.c
> +++ b/drivers/block/aoe/aoecmd.c
> @@ -51,8 +51,8 @@ static struct ktstate *kts;
> 
>   /* io completion queue */
>   struct iocq_ktio {
> -    struct list_head head;
>       spinlock_t lock;
> +    struct list_head head __guarded_by(&lock);
>   };
>   static struct iocq_ktio *iocq;
> 
> @@ -1717,8 +1717,8 @@ aoecmd_init(void)
>       }
> 
>       for (i = 0; i < ncpus; i++) {
> -        INIT_LIST_HEAD(&iocq[i].head);
> -        spin_lock_init(&iocq[i].lock);
> +        scoped_guard(spinlock_init, &iocq[i].lock)
> +            INIT_LIST_HEAD(&iocq[i].head);

This looks good to me, except for the use of scoped_guard() here.
Christoph has previously expressed a preference against using
scoped_guard():
https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/

So lets just see what's his opinion on this change.

Thanks,
--Nilay