Re: [PATCH v11 5/5] iio: pressure: dps310: assert the lock at runtime too

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Sat, Oct 03, 2026 at 10:09:26PM +0300, Rupesh Majhi wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 02, 2026 at 10:57:04AM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 02, 2026 at 10:25:26AM +0300, Rupesh Majhi wrote:
> > > __must_hold() is clang only and does nothing in GCC builds. Add
> > > lockdep_assert_held() next to each, so lockdep catches a missing lock
> > > too.
> >
> > Suggested-by?
> 
> On v10 you said it wasn't really your suggestion, so I dropped it.
> Happy to add it back if you prefer.

Ah, yeah, I assumed that this will be folded in the original patch that adds
__must_hold(). In such a case the Suggested-by would be confusing. Since it's
a separate change (and we have no response from Jonathan on this) the Suggested-by
is fine. Hope that this clarifies why opposite signals were given. But this is
not really anyhow critical. Feel free not to add it at all.

> > But we need to hear from Jonathan and others if they like these annotations in
> > a mere IIO driver.
> 
> Agreed. It stays the last patch in v12, so it can be dropped on its own.

Yep.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko