Re: [RFC] bloody mess with __attribute__() syntax

[Al Viro <viro@ftp.linux.org.uk>]

On Fri, Jul 06, 2007 at 07:55:03PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
>      2. Does Sparse need to enforce any requirement that the functions
>         you assign to the function pointers actually acquire and release
>         some context?  If so, you'd have to do some kind of unification.
>         However, I don't think Sparse needs to enforce that requirement.
>         Either your particular seq_operations need pairing for some
>         context reason, in which case you can specify a particular
>         context on them, or they don't need pairing for some reason, in
>         which case you don't need to specify a context on them.
>         Meanwhile, any actual callers of those functions using the
>         function pointers will get warnings as appropriate based on the
>         solution to problem 1.

That won't work.  You'll have ->show() calling the stuff that assumes
that locks are already grabbed by ->start() => warnings galore.