From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christopher Li Subject: Re: Another sparse warning... Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 20:21:52 -0800 Message-ID: <20070213042152.GC2922@chrisli.org> References: <4975FCBA-D3D4-4DF2-AC20-C11A5F97DE51@cam.ac.uk> <20070213020054.GB2922@chrisli.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from sccrmhc15.comcast.net ([204.127.200.85]:36595 "EHLO sccrmhc15.comcast.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030626AbXBMEv1 (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Feb 2007 23:51:27 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-sparse-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Anton Altaparmakov , linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 07:48:18PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > When call one of those functions, it can know that function will change > > context. That might be a way to solve the problem that some of the > > spinlock function is not a inline function at all. > > I thought we did that already. I'm fairly sure I had this working at some > point - exactly by having the calls just add up the (known) lock/unlock > offsets. > You are right. It is already there. I never see it before because my ctags get confused about the context annotation: void __lockfunc _spin_lock(spinlock_t *lock) __acquires(lock); It generate tags for "lock" instead of "_spin_lock". When I look up _spin_lock, it only shows the UP version. I never see the SMP version of the _spin_lock. Exactly why I want to have a ctags from sparse. Chris