Re: [PATCH 2/2] target: remove spin_lock_assert() in __target_(attach|detach)_tg_pt_gp()

[Bart Van Assche]

On Fri, 2018-03-23 at 18:50 +0100, bigeasy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> On 2018-03-23 17:44:46 [+0000], Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > In other words, do we really need to remove these checks? I think that these
> > checks are useful as documentation to people who read the SCSI target code.
> > The target code is already hard to follow so I think any documentation,
> > especially documentation in the form of code that is checked at runtime, is
> > welcome.
> 
> so if I remove those two and add a kernel doc comment instead, saying
> that the caller needs to ensure that "lun->lun_tg_pt_gp_lock" is held
> then we would remove the obvious runtime check and add a piece of
> documentation. Would that work?

Comments are not verified at runtime and hence can become outdated if the code
is modified. assert_spin_locked() and lockdep_assert_held() assertions however
are verified at runtime with the proper kernel configuration options enabled.
Hence my preference for assert_spin_locked()/lockdep_assert_held() over source
code comments.

Thanks,

Bart.