* [PATCH 1/1] jffs2: fix sparse warning: unexpected unlock @ 2014-09-18 18:46 ` Fabian Frederick 0 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread From: Fabian Frederick @ 2014-09-18 18:46 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel; +Cc: Fabian Frederick, linux-mtd, David Woodhouse fs/jffs2/summary.c:846:5: warning: context imbalance in 'jffs2_sum_write_sumnode' - unexpected unlock Signed-off-by: Fabian Frederick <fabf@skynet.be> --- fs/jffs2/summary.c | 2 ++ 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) diff --git a/fs/jffs2/summary.c b/fs/jffs2/summary.c index c522d09..a0bac7b 100644 --- a/fs/jffs2/summary.c +++ b/fs/jffs2/summary.c @@ -844,6 +844,8 @@ static int jffs2_sum_write_data(struct jffs2_sb_info *c, struct jffs2_eraseblock /* Write out summary information - called from jffs2_do_reserve_space */ int jffs2_sum_write_sumnode(struct jffs2_sb_info *c) + __releases(&c->erase_completion_lock) + __acquires(&c->erase_completion_lock) { int datasize, infosize, padsize; struct jffs2_eraseblock *jeb; -- 1.9.1 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 1/1] jffs2: fix sparse warning: unexpected unlock @ 2014-09-18 18:46 ` Fabian Frederick 0 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread From: Fabian Frederick @ 2014-09-18 18:46 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel; +Cc: Fabian Frederick, David Woodhouse, linux-mtd fs/jffs2/summary.c:846:5: warning: context imbalance in 'jffs2_sum_write_sumnode' - unexpected unlock Signed-off-by: Fabian Frederick <fabf@skynet.be> --- fs/jffs2/summary.c | 2 ++ 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) diff --git a/fs/jffs2/summary.c b/fs/jffs2/summary.c index c522d09..a0bac7b 100644 --- a/fs/jffs2/summary.c +++ b/fs/jffs2/summary.c @@ -844,6 +844,8 @@ static int jffs2_sum_write_data(struct jffs2_sb_info *c, struct jffs2_eraseblock /* Write out summary information - called from jffs2_do_reserve_space */ int jffs2_sum_write_sumnode(struct jffs2_sb_info *c) + __releases(&c->erase_completion_lock) + __acquires(&c->erase_completion_lock) { int datasize, infosize, padsize; struct jffs2_eraseblock *jeb; -- 1.9.1 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/1] jffs2: fix sparse warning: unexpected unlock 2014-09-18 18:46 ` Fabian Frederick @ 2014-09-22 18:12 ` Brian Norris -1 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread From: Brian Norris @ 2014-09-22 18:12 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Fabian Frederick; +Cc: David Woodhouse, linux-sparse, linux-mtd, linux-kernel + linux-sparse On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 08:46:16PM +0200, Fabian Frederick wrote: > fs/jffs2/summary.c:846:5: warning: context imbalance in 'jffs2_sum_write_sumnode' - unexpected unlock > > Signed-off-by: Fabian Frederick <fabf@skynet.be> > --- > fs/jffs2/summary.c | 2 ++ > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/fs/jffs2/summary.c b/fs/jffs2/summary.c > index c522d09..a0bac7b 100644 > --- a/fs/jffs2/summary.c > +++ b/fs/jffs2/summary.c > @@ -844,6 +844,8 @@ static int jffs2_sum_write_data(struct jffs2_sb_info *c, struct jffs2_eraseblock > /* Write out summary information - called from jffs2_do_reserve_space */ > > int jffs2_sum_write_sumnode(struct jffs2_sb_info *c) > + __releases(&c->erase_completion_lock) > + __acquires(&c->erase_completion_lock) I'm not too familiar with sparse notations, but Documentation/sparse.txt suggests the above is wrong, and the following is more accurate: __must_hold(&c->erase_completion_lock) But it looks like there are several other examples which do this. Anyway, here's the relevant doc text, in case someone wants to clarify it for me, or else tell me the documentation is wrong: __must_hold - The specified lock is held on function entry and exit. __acquires - The specified lock is held on function exit, but not entry. __releases - The specified lock is held on function entry, but not exit. So __acquires and __releases look mutually exclusive, but it's not clear if __must_hold will actually cover what we want. (I haven't tested it.) > { > int datasize, infosize, padsize; > struct jffs2_eraseblock *jeb; Brian ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/1] jffs2: fix sparse warning: unexpected unlock @ 2014-09-22 18:12 ` Brian Norris 0 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread From: Brian Norris @ 2014-09-22 18:12 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Fabian Frederick; +Cc: linux-kernel, linux-mtd, David Woodhouse, linux-sparse + linux-sparse On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 08:46:16PM +0200, Fabian Frederick wrote: > fs/jffs2/summary.c:846:5: warning: context imbalance in 'jffs2_sum_write_sumnode' - unexpected unlock > > Signed-off-by: Fabian Frederick <fabf@skynet.be> > --- > fs/jffs2/summary.c | 2 ++ > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/fs/jffs2/summary.c b/fs/jffs2/summary.c > index c522d09..a0bac7b 100644 > --- a/fs/jffs2/summary.c > +++ b/fs/jffs2/summary.c > @@ -844,6 +844,8 @@ static int jffs2_sum_write_data(struct jffs2_sb_info *c, struct jffs2_eraseblock > /* Write out summary information - called from jffs2_do_reserve_space */ > > int jffs2_sum_write_sumnode(struct jffs2_sb_info *c) > + __releases(&c->erase_completion_lock) > + __acquires(&c->erase_completion_lock) I'm not too familiar with sparse notations, but Documentation/sparse.txt suggests the above is wrong, and the following is more accurate: __must_hold(&c->erase_completion_lock) But it looks like there are several other examples which do this. Anyway, here's the relevant doc text, in case someone wants to clarify it for me, or else tell me the documentation is wrong: __must_hold - The specified lock is held on function entry and exit. __acquires - The specified lock is held on function exit, but not entry. __releases - The specified lock is held on function entry, but not exit. So __acquires and __releases look mutually exclusive, but it's not clear if __must_hold will actually cover what we want. (I haven't tested it.) > { > int datasize, infosize, padsize; > struct jffs2_eraseblock *jeb; Brian ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/1] jffs2: fix sparse warning: unexpected unlock 2014-09-22 18:12 ` Brian Norris @ 2014-09-26 23:17 ` josh -1 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread From: josh @ 2014-09-26 23:17 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Brian Norris Cc: Fabian Frederick, David Woodhouse, linux-sparse, linux-mtd, linux-kernel On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 11:12:50AM -0700, Brian Norris wrote: > + linux-sparse > > On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 08:46:16PM +0200, Fabian Frederick wrote: > > fs/jffs2/summary.c:846:5: warning: context imbalance in 'jffs2_sum_write_sumnode' - unexpected unlock > > > > Signed-off-by: Fabian Frederick <fabf@skynet.be> > > --- > > fs/jffs2/summary.c | 2 ++ > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/fs/jffs2/summary.c b/fs/jffs2/summary.c > > index c522d09..a0bac7b 100644 > > --- a/fs/jffs2/summary.c > > +++ b/fs/jffs2/summary.c > > @@ -844,6 +844,8 @@ static int jffs2_sum_write_data(struct jffs2_sb_info *c, struct jffs2_eraseblock > > /* Write out summary information - called from jffs2_do_reserve_space */ > > > > int jffs2_sum_write_sumnode(struct jffs2_sb_info *c) > > + __releases(&c->erase_completion_lock) > > + __acquires(&c->erase_completion_lock) > > I'm not too familiar with sparse notations, but Documentation/sparse.txt > suggests the above is wrong, and the following is more accurate: > > __must_hold(&c->erase_completion_lock) > > But it looks like there are several other examples which do this. > Anyway, here's the relevant doc text, in case someone wants to clarify > it for me, or else tell me the documentation is wrong: > > __must_hold - The specified lock is held on function entry and exit. > > __acquires - The specified lock is held on function exit, but not entry. > > __releases - The specified lock is held on function entry, but not exit. > > So __acquires and __releases look mutually exclusive, but it's not clear > if __must_hold will actually cover what we want. (I haven't tested it.) __must_hold is indeed the correct annotation. (There isn't currently anything enforcing that, though.) - Josh Triplett ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/1] jffs2: fix sparse warning: unexpected unlock @ 2014-09-26 23:17 ` josh 0 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread From: josh @ 2014-09-26 23:17 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Brian Norris Cc: Fabian Frederick, linux-kernel, linux-mtd, David Woodhouse, linux-sparse On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 11:12:50AM -0700, Brian Norris wrote: > + linux-sparse > > On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 08:46:16PM +0200, Fabian Frederick wrote: > > fs/jffs2/summary.c:846:5: warning: context imbalance in 'jffs2_sum_write_sumnode' - unexpected unlock > > > > Signed-off-by: Fabian Frederick <fabf@skynet.be> > > --- > > fs/jffs2/summary.c | 2 ++ > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/fs/jffs2/summary.c b/fs/jffs2/summary.c > > index c522d09..a0bac7b 100644 > > --- a/fs/jffs2/summary.c > > +++ b/fs/jffs2/summary.c > > @@ -844,6 +844,8 @@ static int jffs2_sum_write_data(struct jffs2_sb_info *c, struct jffs2_eraseblock > > /* Write out summary information - called from jffs2_do_reserve_space */ > > > > int jffs2_sum_write_sumnode(struct jffs2_sb_info *c) > > + __releases(&c->erase_completion_lock) > > + __acquires(&c->erase_completion_lock) > > I'm not too familiar with sparse notations, but Documentation/sparse.txt > suggests the above is wrong, and the following is more accurate: > > __must_hold(&c->erase_completion_lock) > > But it looks like there are several other examples which do this. > Anyway, here's the relevant doc text, in case someone wants to clarify > it for me, or else tell me the documentation is wrong: > > __must_hold - The specified lock is held on function entry and exit. > > __acquires - The specified lock is held on function exit, but not entry. > > __releases - The specified lock is held on function entry, but not exit. > > So __acquires and __releases look mutually exclusive, but it's not clear > if __must_hold will actually cover what we want. (I haven't tested it.) __must_hold is indeed the correct annotation. (There isn't currently anything enforcing that, though.) - Josh Triplett ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/1] jffs2: fix sparse warning: unexpected unlock 2014-09-26 23:17 ` josh @ 2014-09-27 8:41 ` Fabian Frederick -1 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread From: Fabian Frederick @ 2014-09-27 8:41 UTC (permalink / raw) To: josh, Brian Norris; +Cc: David Woodhouse, linux-sparse, linux-mtd, linux-kernel > On 27 September 2014 at 01:17 josh@joshtriplett.org wrote: > > > On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 11:12:50AM -0700, Brian Norris wrote: > > + linux-sparse > > > > On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 08:46:16PM +0200, Fabian Frederick wrote: > > > fs/jffs2/summary.c:846:5: warning: context imbalance in > > > 'jffs2_sum_write_sumnode' - unexpected unlock > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Fabian Frederick <fabf@skynet.be> > > > --- > > > fs/jffs2/summary.c | 2 ++ > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/fs/jffs2/summary.c b/fs/jffs2/summary.c > > > index c522d09..a0bac7b 100644 > > > --- a/fs/jffs2/summary.c > > > +++ b/fs/jffs2/summary.c > > > @@ -844,6 +844,8 @@ static int jffs2_sum_write_data(struct jffs2_sb_info > > > *c, struct jffs2_eraseblock > > > /* Write out summary information - called from jffs2_do_reserve_space */ > > > > > > int jffs2_sum_write_sumnode(struct jffs2_sb_info *c) > > > + __releases(&c->erase_completion_lock) > > > + __acquires(&c->erase_completion_lock) > > > > I'm not too familiar with sparse notations, but Documentation/sparse.txt > > suggests the above is wrong, and the following is more accurate: > > > > __must_hold(&c->erase_completion_lock) > > > > But it looks like there are several other examples which do this. > > Anyway, here's the relevant doc text, in case someone wants to clarify > > it for me, or else tell me the documentation is wrong: > > > > __must_hold - The specified lock is held on function entry and exit. > > > > __acquires - The specified lock is held on function exit, but not entry. > > > > __releases - The specified lock is held on function entry, but not exit. > > > > So __acquires and __releases look mutually exclusive, but it's not clear > > if __must_hold will actually cover what we want. (I haven't tested it.) > > __must_hold is indeed the correct annotation. (There isn't currently > anything enforcing that, though.) > > - Josh Triplett There are 137 __releases && __acquires annotated functions in stable. AFAICS those are based on lock held on function entry / lock held on exit See fs/fuse/file.c:1527 fs/kernfs/dir.c:341 drivers/block/nbd.c:564 Does it mean that all of these should be updated to __must_hold ? Fabian ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/1] jffs2: fix sparse warning: unexpected unlock @ 2014-09-27 8:41 ` Fabian Frederick 0 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread From: Fabian Frederick @ 2014-09-27 8:41 UTC (permalink / raw) To: josh, Brian Norris; +Cc: linux-mtd, David Woodhouse, linux-kernel, linux-sparse > On 27 September 2014 at 01:17 josh@joshtriplett.org wrote: > > > On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 11:12:50AM -0700, Brian Norris wrote: > > + linux-sparse > > > > On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 08:46:16PM +0200, Fabian Frederick wrote: > > > fs/jffs2/summary.c:846:5: warning: context imbalance in > > > 'jffs2_sum_write_sumnode' - unexpected unlock > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Fabian Frederick <fabf@skynet.be> > > > --- > > > fs/jffs2/summary.c | 2 ++ > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/fs/jffs2/summary.c b/fs/jffs2/summary.c > > > index c522d09..a0bac7b 100644 > > > --- a/fs/jffs2/summary.c > > > +++ b/fs/jffs2/summary.c > > > @@ -844,6 +844,8 @@ static int jffs2_sum_write_data(struct jffs2_sb_info > > > *c, struct jffs2_eraseblock > > > /* Write out summary information - called from jffs2_do_reserve_space */ > > > > > > int jffs2_sum_write_sumnode(struct jffs2_sb_info *c) > > > + __releases(&c->erase_completion_lock) > > > + __acquires(&c->erase_completion_lock) > > > > I'm not too familiar with sparse notations, but Documentation/sparse.txt > > suggests the above is wrong, and the following is more accurate: > > > > __must_hold(&c->erase_completion_lock) > > > > But it looks like there are several other examples which do this. > > Anyway, here's the relevant doc text, in case someone wants to clarify > > it for me, or else tell me the documentation is wrong: > > > > __must_hold - The specified lock is held on function entry and exit. > > > > __acquires - The specified lock is held on function exit, but not entry. > > > > __releases - The specified lock is held on function entry, but not exit. > > > > So __acquires and __releases look mutually exclusive, but it's not clear > > if __must_hold will actually cover what we want. (I haven't tested it.) > > __must_hold is indeed the correct annotation. (There isn't currently > anything enforcing that, though.) > > - Josh Triplett There are 137 __releases && __acquires annotated functions in stable. AFAICS those are based on lock held on function entry / lock held on exit See fs/fuse/file.c:1527 fs/kernfs/dir.c:341 drivers/block/nbd.c:564 Does it mean that all of these should be updated to __must_hold ? Fabian ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/1] jffs2: fix sparse warning: unexpected unlock 2014-09-27 8:41 ` Fabian Frederick (?) @ 2014-09-28 9:56 ` Josh Triplett -1 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread From: Josh Triplett @ 2014-09-28 9:56 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Fabian Frederick Cc: David Woodhouse, linux-sparse, Brian Norris, linux-mtd, linux-kernel On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 10:41:55AM +0200, Fabian Frederick wrote: > > > > On 27 September 2014 at 01:17 josh@joshtriplett.org wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 11:12:50AM -0700, Brian Norris wrote: > > > + linux-sparse > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 08:46:16PM +0200, Fabian Frederick wrote: > > > > fs/jffs2/summary.c:846:5: warning: context imbalance in > > > > 'jffs2_sum_write_sumnode' - unexpected unlock > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Fabian Frederick <fabf@skynet.be> > > > > --- > > > > fs/jffs2/summary.c | 2 ++ > > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/fs/jffs2/summary.c b/fs/jffs2/summary.c > > > > index c522d09..a0bac7b 100644 > > > > --- a/fs/jffs2/summary.c > > > > +++ b/fs/jffs2/summary.c > > > > @@ -844,6 +844,8 @@ static int jffs2_sum_write_data(struct jffs2_sb_info > > > > *c, struct jffs2_eraseblock > > > > /* Write out summary information - called from jffs2_do_reserve_space */ > > > > > > > > int jffs2_sum_write_sumnode(struct jffs2_sb_info *c) > > > > + __releases(&c->erase_completion_lock) > > > > + __acquires(&c->erase_completion_lock) > > > > > > I'm not too familiar with sparse notations, but Documentation/sparse.txt > > > suggests the above is wrong, and the following is more accurate: > > > > > > __must_hold(&c->erase_completion_lock) > > > > > > But it looks like there are several other examples which do this. > > > Anyway, here's the relevant doc text, in case someone wants to clarify > > > it for me, or else tell me the documentation is wrong: > > > > > > __must_hold - The specified lock is held on function entry and exit. > > > > > > __acquires - The specified lock is held on function exit, but not entry. > > > > > > __releases - The specified lock is held on function entry, but not exit. > > > > > > So __acquires and __releases look mutually exclusive, but it's not clear > > > if __must_hold will actually cover what we want. (I haven't tested it.) > > > > __must_hold is indeed the correct annotation. (There isn't currently > > anything enforcing that, though.) > > > > - Josh Triplett > > There are 137 __releases && __acquires annotated functions in stable. > > AFAICS those are based on lock held on function entry / lock held on exit > > See > fs/fuse/file.c:1527 > fs/kernfs/dir.c:341 > drivers/block/nbd.c:564 > > Does it mean that all of these should be updated to __must_hold ? Not really worth changing yet until something actually pays closer attention to those annotations. - Josh Triplett ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/1] jffs2: fix sparse warning: unexpected unlock @ 2014-09-28 9:56 ` Josh Triplett 0 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread From: Josh Triplett @ 2014-09-28 9:56 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Fabian Frederick Cc: Brian Norris, linux-mtd, David Woodhouse, linux-kernel, linux-sparse On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 10:41:55AM +0200, Fabian Frederick wrote: > > > > On 27 September 2014 at 01:17 josh@joshtriplett.org wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 11:12:50AM -0700, Brian Norris wrote: > > > + linux-sparse > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 08:46:16PM +0200, Fabian Frederick wrote: > > > > fs/jffs2/summary.c:846:5: warning: context imbalance in > > > > 'jffs2_sum_write_sumnode' - unexpected unlock > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Fabian Frederick <fabf@skynet.be> > > > > --- > > > > fs/jffs2/summary.c | 2 ++ > > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/fs/jffs2/summary.c b/fs/jffs2/summary.c > > > > index c522d09..a0bac7b 100644 > > > > --- a/fs/jffs2/summary.c > > > > +++ b/fs/jffs2/summary.c > > > > @@ -844,6 +844,8 @@ static int jffs2_sum_write_data(struct jffs2_sb_info > > > > *c, struct jffs2_eraseblock > > > > /* Write out summary information - called from jffs2_do_reserve_space */ > > > > > > > > int jffs2_sum_write_sumnode(struct jffs2_sb_info *c) > > > > + __releases(&c->erase_completion_lock) > > > > + __acquires(&c->erase_completion_lock) > > > > > > I'm not too familiar with sparse notations, but Documentation/sparse.txt > > > suggests the above is wrong, and the following is more accurate: > > > > > > __must_hold(&c->erase_completion_lock) > > > > > > But it looks like there are several other examples which do this. > > > Anyway, here's the relevant doc text, in case someone wants to clarify > > > it for me, or else tell me the documentation is wrong: > > > > > > __must_hold - The specified lock is held on function entry and exit. > > > > > > __acquires - The specified lock is held on function exit, but not entry. > > > > > > __releases - The specified lock is held on function entry, but not exit. > > > > > > So __acquires and __releases look mutually exclusive, but it's not clear > > > if __must_hold will actually cover what we want. (I haven't tested it.) > > > > __must_hold is indeed the correct annotation. (There isn't currently > > anything enforcing that, though.) > > > > - Josh Triplett > > There are 137 __releases && __acquires annotated functions in stable. > > AFAICS those are based on lock held on function entry / lock held on exit > > See > fs/fuse/file.c:1527 > fs/kernfs/dir.c:341 > drivers/block/nbd.c:564 > > Does it mean that all of these should be updated to __must_hold ? Not really worth changing yet until something actually pays closer attention to those annotations. - Josh Triplett ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/1] jffs2: fix sparse warning: unexpected unlock @ 2014-09-28 9:56 ` Josh Triplett 0 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread From: Josh Triplett @ 2014-09-28 9:56 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Fabian Frederick Cc: Brian Norris, linux-mtd, David Woodhouse, linux-kernel, linux-sparse On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 10:41:55AM +0200, Fabian Frederick wrote: > > > > On 27 September 2014 at 01:17 josh@joshtriplett.org wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 11:12:50AM -0700, Brian Norris wrote: > > > + linux-sparse > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 08:46:16PM +0200, Fabian Frederick wrote: > > > > fs/jffs2/summary.c:846:5: warning: context imbalance in > > > > 'jffs2_sum_write_sumnode' - unexpected unlock > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Fabian Frederick <fabf@skynet.be> > > > > --- > > > > fs/jffs2/summary.c | 2 ++ > > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/fs/jffs2/summary.c b/fs/jffs2/summary.c > > > > index c522d09..a0bac7b 100644 > > > > --- a/fs/jffs2/summary.c > > > > +++ b/fs/jffs2/summary.c > > > > @@ -844,6 +844,8 @@ static int jffs2_sum_write_data(struct jffs2_sb_info > > > > *c, struct jffs2_eraseblock > > > > /* Write out summary information - called from jffs2_do_reserve_space */ > > > > > > > > int jffs2_sum_write_sumnode(struct jffs2_sb_info *c) > > > > + __releases(&c->erase_completion_lock) > > > > + __acquires(&c->erase_completion_lock) > > > > > > I'm not too familiar with sparse notations, but Documentation/sparse.txt > > > suggests the above is wrong, and the following is more accurate: > > > > > > __must_hold(&c->erase_completion_lock) > > > > > > But it looks like there are several other examples which do this. > > > Anyway, here's the relevant doc text, in case someone wants to clarify > > > it for me, or else tell me the documentation is wrong: > > > > > > __must_hold - The specified lock is held on function entry and exit. > > > > > > __acquires - The specified lock is held on function exit, but not entry. > > > > > > __releases - The specified lock is held on function entry, but not exit. > > > > > > So __acquires and __releases look mutually exclusive, but it's not clear > > > if __must_hold will actually cover what we want. (I haven't tested it.) > > > > __must_hold is indeed the correct annotation. (There isn't currently > > anything enforcing that, though.) > > > > - Josh Triplett > > There are 137 __releases && __acquires annotated functions in stable. > > AFAICS those are based on lock held on function entry / lock held on exit > > See > fs/fuse/file.c:1527 > fs/kernfs/dir.c:341 > drivers/block/nbd.c:564 > > Does it mean that all of these should be updated to __must_hold ? Not really worth changing yet until something actually pays closer attention to those annotations. - Josh Triplett -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sparse" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2014-09-28 9:57 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 11+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2014-09-18 18:46 [PATCH 1/1] jffs2: fix sparse warning: unexpected unlock Fabian Frederick 2014-09-18 18:46 ` Fabian Frederick 2014-09-22 18:12 ` Brian Norris 2014-09-22 18:12 ` Brian Norris 2014-09-26 23:17 ` josh 2014-09-26 23:17 ` josh 2014-09-27 8:41 ` Fabian Frederick 2014-09-27 8:41 ` Fabian Frederick 2014-09-28 9:56 ` Josh Triplett 2014-09-28 9:56 ` Josh Triplett 2014-09-28 9:56 ` Josh Triplett
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.