Quoting Sebastian Andrzej Siewior (2019-09-26 11:56:44)
The lockdep_assert_irqs_disabled() check is needless. The previous lockdep_assert_held() check ensures that the lock is acquired and while the lock is acquired lockdep also prints a warning if the interrupts are not disabled if they have to be. These IRQ-off asserts trigger on PREEMPT_RT because the locks become sleeping locks and do not really disable interrupts.
The intent was to document the entry points in were to be common dma-fence functions where irqs were expected to be off. Similarly for breadcrumbs to indicate that they were inner functions dealing with irq-sensitive locks that the caller had to disable irqs for. lockdep is not the clearest when it comes to explaining irq-inversions.
Remove lockdep_assert_irqs_disabled().
Reported-by: Clark Williams williams@redhat.com Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior bigeasy@linutronix.de
Given the context though, they are moot. Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson chris@chris-wilson.co.uk -Chris