Re: Sparse annotation for "context imbalance" false positives?

!MAILaRCHIVE_VOTE_RePLACE
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Roland Dreier <rdreier@...>
Cc: <linux-kernel@...>, <linux-sparse@...>, David Brownell <david-b@...>
Date: Thursday, May 15, 2008 - 11:20 am

> but the problem sparse sees is not that some paths take only one lock
cq *recv_cq)
 'mlx4_ib_lock_cqs' - wrong count at exitn

Oh. Well yes, you also have to annotate the function:

static void =EF=BB=BFmlx4_ib_lock_cqs(struct mlx4_ib_cq *send_cq, struct ml=
x4_ib_cq *recv_cq)
	__acquires(&recv_cq->lock) __acquires(&send_cq->lock)
{
	...
}

but we're still discussing whether the & should be in there or not. I'd
think right now is a bad time for you to be working on this unless you
want to help with how sparse should behave too.

johannes
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Sparse annotation for "context imbalance" false positives?, Roland Dreier, (Wed May 14, 11:16 pm)
Re: Sparse annotation for "context imbalance" false positives?, Johannes Berg, (Thu May 15, 11:20 am)