On Fri, 19 Dec 2025 at 21:55, 'Bart Van Assche' via kasan-dev <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 12/19/25 7:40 AM, Marco Elver wrote: > > static inline void rwsem_assert_held_nolockdep(const struct rw_semaphore > > *sem) > > + __assumes_ctx_lock(sem) > > { > > WARN_ON(atomic_long_read(&sem->count) == RWSEM_UNLOCKED_VALUE); > > } > > > > static inline void rwsem_assert_held_write_nolockdep(const struct > > rw_semaphore *sem) > > + __assumes_ctx_lock(sem) > > { > > WARN_ON(!(atomic_long_read(&sem->count) & RWSEM_WRITER_LOCKED)); > > } > > @@ -119,6 +121,7 @@ do { > > \ > > static struct lock_class_key __key; \ > > \ > > __init_rwsem((sem), #sem, &__key); \ > > + __assume_ctx_lock(sem); \ > > } while (0) > > Just like as for lockdep.h, I think that the above annotations should be > changed into __must_hold().
My point is the same: we use it to delegate to dynamic analysis where we reach the limits of static analysis, to avoid false positives [1]. Code should apply __must_hold() or __guarded_by() to called or protected variables respectively, which is both cleaner and the idiomatic way to use all this. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/canpmjnpp6gkz3rdad0v7ekprm60sa5tppw+m8xg3u8mtxuc...@mail.gmail.com/
