From: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
To: David Brownell <david-b@pacbell.net>
Cc: linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: sparse context warning problem ...
Date: Sun, 11 May 2008 11:46:26 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1210499186.3646.16.camel@johannes.berg> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200805102018.13358.david-b@pacbell.net>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1959 bytes --]
On Sat, 2008-05-10 at 20:18 -0700, David Brownell wrote:
> On Saturday 10 May 2008, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > This is probably my mistake.
> >
> > However, I took __releases and __acquires to mean that this function
> > *changed* the context, doing both doesn't really make much sense. I
> > think the function should actually be declared
> >
> > static void
> > finish_urb(...)
> > __requires(ohci->lock)
> > {...}
> >
> > where __requires is (for sparse) defined as
> >
> > #define __requires(x) __attribute__((context(x,1,1)))
>
> ISTR suggesting special syntax for this to Linus (this was way
> back when "sparse" was just starting) and he wanted to just do
> it by having those two attributes.
>
> So at this point, I'd want to see the regression fixed (and the
> tests updated to avoid this in the future) before exploring any
> alternative syntax for kernel annotations.
Yeah, true, on the other hand, if/when Josh merges my other patches then
most kernel annotations will have to be changed anyway because up to
before the patch that is already in sparse wouldn't flag this:
spin_lock(&lock);
rcu_read_unlock();
because it didn't care *at all* about the expression inside __acquire()
and thus a lot of usage crept in that isn't really usable.
With my future patches, I'm even binding the symbols, so that
void spin_lock(spinlock_t l) __acquire(l);
will flag errors with
spin_lock(&a);
spin_unlock(&b);
while right now it would just treat them both as the context "l".
So I expect that it will not be possible to not "regress" in that sense
because the current annotations are simply messed up since sparse didn't
care about the name inside __acquire()/__release() at all!
However, it's probably fairly easy right now to treat both of them as
being merged together which seems the only sensible things to do anyway
if such a situation is encountered. I'll look into it.
johannes
[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 828 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-05-11 9:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-05-11 0:24 sparse context warning problem David Brownell
2008-05-11 0:40 ` Johannes Berg
2008-05-11 3:18 ` David Brownell
2008-05-11 9:46 ` Johannes Berg [this message]
2008-05-13 21:52 ` Johannes Berg
2008-05-14 13:58 ` David Brownell
2008-05-14 14:06 ` Johannes Berg
2008-05-29 8:47 ` Johannes Berg
2008-05-29 9:39 ` David Brownell
2008-05-29 9:54 ` Johannes Berg
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1210499186.3646.16.camel@johannes.berg \
--to=johannes@sipsolutions.net \
--cc=david-b@pacbell.net \
--cc=linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).