From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Zijlstra Subject: Re: [PATCH] locking/refcount: add sparse annotations to dec-and-lock functions Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2020 16:26:29 +0100 Message-ID: <20200106152629.GU2810@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <20191226152922.2034-1-ebiggers@kernel.org> <20191228114918.GU2827@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <201912301042.FB806E1133@keescook> <20191230191547.GA1501@zzz.localdomain> <201912301131.2C7C51E8C6@keescook> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201912301131.2C7C51E8C6@keescook> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Kees Cook Cc: Eric Biggers , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar , Will Deacon , Elena Reshetova , Thomas Gleixner , Anna-Maria Gleixner , Sebastian Andrzej Siewior , Luc Van Oostenryck , linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 11:32:31AM -0800, Kees Cook wrote: > Is there a meaningful proposal anywhere for sparse to DTRT here? These are what I found going through my Sent folder and Google'ing the resulting subjects: https://markmail.org/message/4obybcgqscznnx63 https://markmail.org/message/pp4ofksgactvgjbd?q=inverted_lock > If > not, it seems best to use what you've proposed until sparse reaches the > point of being able to do this on its own. Or just leave the silly sparse warning, they're easy to ignore.