From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Luc Van Oostenryck Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] do not corrupt ptrlist while killing unreachable BBs Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2017 15:47:14 +0200 Message-ID: <20170707134713.3kirm7f4lqexxrot@ltop.local> References: <20170706191950.81268-2-luc.vanoostenryck@gmail.com> <20170707082802.gphim2wpqsncqoyh@ltop.local> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mail-wr0-f180.google.com ([209.85.128.180]:34267 "EHLO mail-wr0-f180.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752855AbdGGNrR (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Jul 2017 09:47:17 -0400 Received: by mail-wr0-f180.google.com with SMTP id 77so47879188wrb.1 for ; Fri, 07 Jul 2017 06:47:17 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-sparse-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org To: Dibyendu Majumdar Cc: Christopher Li , Linus Torvalds , Linux-Sparse On Fri, Jul 07, 2017 at 02:29:56PM +0100, Dibyendu Majumdar wrote: > Agree that if refcount is used as a lock to prevent inner loops from > amending the list then it is the same. But I think Chris is trying to > do more - i.e. allow an inner loop to amend the list. That might > simply not be possible to handle safely. We have to do something more (or something less :)) otherwise the refcount can only be used to detect a problem. In other words, having a situation like "OK, I can't safely do XYZ here" is maybe better than the current situation but doesn't help when you need to do XYZ. -- Luc