Re: Sparse fix for scsi_request_fn

!MAILaRCHIVE_VOTE_RePLACE
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@...>
Cc: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...>, Al Viro <viro@...>, <linux-kernel@...>, <linux-scsi@...>
Date: Monday, October 22, 2007 - 10:09 pm

On Mon, 22 Oct 2007, Matthew Wilcox wrote:

Umm. This is why we write things like

	static void double_lock_balance(struct rq *this_rq, struct rq *busiest)
		__releases(this_rq->lock)
		__acquires(busiest->lock)
		__acquires(this_rq->lock)
	{
		...

ie your "__holds()" is nothing new, and should be written as 
a pair of __releases(x) and __acquires(x), which is more readable anyway 
(since it actually says what the function does!)

		Linus
-
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Sparse fix for scsi_request_fn, Matthew Wilcox, (Mon Oct 22, 9:48 pm)
Re: Sparse fix for scsi_request_fn, Linus Torvalds, (Mon Oct 22, 10:09 pm)
Re: Sparse fix for scsi_request_fn, Matthew Wilcox, (Tue Oct 23, 5:13 pm)