On Wed, Nov 22, 2006 at 12:11:46AM -0800, Ira Snyder wrote:
> This patch adds many lock annotations to the kernel source to quiet
> warnings from sparse. In almost every case, it quiets the warning caused
> by locks that are intentionally grabbed in one function and released in
> another.
>
> In the other cases, __acquire() and __release() are used to make sparse
> believe that a lock was grabbed (even though it was not), in order to
> make all exit points have equal lock counts. These follow the style in
> kernel/sched.c.
> --- a/arch/i386/kernel/smp.c
> +++ b/arch/i386/kernel/smp.c
> @@ -507,11 +507,13 @@ struct call_data_struct {
> };
>
> void lock_ipi_call_lock(void)
> +__acquires(call_lock)
> {
> spin_lock_irq(&call_lock);
> }
>
> void unlock_ipi_call_lock(void)
> +__releases(call_lock)
> {
> spin_unlock_irq(&call_lock);
> }
Wrong place. Prototypes should be marked instead. How else would you
know about:
lock_ipi_call_lock();
if (foo)
return -E;
lock_ipi_call_lock();
on another compilation unit?
> --- a/drivers/acpi/osl.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/osl.c
> @@ -1004,6 +1004,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(max_cstate);
> */
>
> acpi_cpu_flags acpi_os_acquire_lock(acpi_spinlock lockp)
> +__acquires(lockp)
> {
> acpi_cpu_flags flags;
> spin_lock_irqsave(lockp, flags);
> @@ -1015,6 +1016,7 @@ acpi_cpu_flags acpi_os_acquire_lock(acpi
> */
>
> void acpi_os_release_lock(acpi_spinlock lockp, acpi_cpu_flags flags)
> +__releases(lockp)
> {
> spin_unlock_irqrestore(lockp, flags);
> }
Again, wrong. IMO, sparse should deduce itself that lock is grabbed in such
trivial cases.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
