On Thu, 11 Dec 2025 at 12:43, Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 20, 2025 at 04:09:32PM +0100, Marco Elver wrote: > > > include/linux/lockdep.h | 12 ++++++------ > > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/include/linux/lockdep.h b/include/linux/lockdep.h > > index 67964dc4db95..2c99a6823161 100644 > > --- a/include/linux/lockdep.h > > +++ b/include/linux/lockdep.h > > @@ -282,16 +282,16 @@ extern void lock_unpin_lock(struct lockdep_map *lock, > > struct pin_cookie); > > do { WARN_ON_ONCE(debug_locks && !(cond)); } while (0) > > Since I typically read patches without first reading the Changelog -- > because when I read the code later, I also don't see changelogs. > > I must admit to getting most terribly confused here -- *again*, as I > then search back to previous discussions and found I was previously also > confused. > > As such, I think we want a comment here that explains that assume_ctx > thing. > > It is *NOT* (as the clang naming suggests) an assertion of holding the > lock (which is requires_ctx), but rather an annotation that forces the > ctx to be considered held.
Noted. I'll add some appropriate wording above the __assumes_ctx_guard() attribute, so this is not lost in the commit logs.
