From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Or Gerlitz Subject: Re: smatch warnings on the IB core Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 09:03:16 +0200 Message-ID: <526F5DB4.9020401@mellanox.com> References: <526CB685.40607@mellanox.com> <1828884A29C6694DAF28B7E6B8A8237388CF16CC@ORSMSX109.amr.corp.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1828884A29C6694DAF28B7E6B8A8237388CF16CC-P5GAC/sN6hkd3b2yrw5b5LfspsVTdybXVpNB7YpNyf8@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-rdma-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Dan Carpenter Cc: "Hefty, Sean" , "linux-rdma (linux-rdma-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org)" List-Id: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org On 28/10/2013 18:32, Hefty, Sean wrote: > Visually inspecting the code for both of these, I don't see anything wrong. In both cases the listen mutex is acquired near the top of the function and released at the end. I don't see how you exit either function with the mutex locked. > > In the top case, line 1271 is a return statement that occurs before we've acquired the mutex. Line 1274 is an abort case where we acquire the mutex, check a state, release the mutex, and return. Dan, do you agree this is false-positive? anything we can do to teach smatch not to shout on that? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html