From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Josh Triplett Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Introduce __cond_lock_err Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2017 01:39:11 -0800 Message-ID: <20171223093910.GB6160@localhost> References: <20171219165823.24243-1-willy@infradead.org> <20171219165823.24243-2-willy@infradead.org> <20171221214810.GC9087@linux.intel.com> <20171222011000.GB23624@bombadil.infradead.org> <20171222042120.GA18036@localhost> <20171222123112.GA6401@bombadil.infradead.org> <20171222133634.GE6401@bombadil.infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20171222133634.GE6401@bombadil.infradead.org> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Matthew Wilcox Cc: Ross Zwisler , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Dave Hansen , linux-mm@kvack.org, Matthew Wilcox , linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org +linux-sparse On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 05:36:34AM -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 04:31:12AM -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 08:21:20PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote: > > > On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 05:10:00PM -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > > > Yes, but this define is only #if __CHECKER__, so it doesn't matter what we > > > > return as this code will never run. > > > > > > It does matter slightly, as Sparse does some (very limited) value-based > > > analyses. Let's future-proof it. > > > > > > > That said, if sparse supports the GNU syntax of ?: then I have no > > > > objection to doing that. > > > > > > Sparse does support that syntax. > > > > Great, I'll fix that and resubmit. > > Except the context imbalance warning comes back if I do. This is sparse > 0.5.1 (Debian's 0.5.1-2 package). -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org