From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Suhabe Bugrara" Subject: Re: [PATCH 7] Adding the interrupt checker Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 17:26:55 -0700 Message-ID: <5166c2f30703301726q2a3cfb91p7fdb5f7ae146d22d@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from an-out-0708.google.com ([209.85.132.249]:20359 "EHLO an-out-0708.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933133AbXCaA04 (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Mar 2007 20:26:56 -0400 Received: by an-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id b33so659079ana for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2007 17:26:55 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-sparse-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org To: linux-sparse@VGER.KERNEL.ORG On Thu, 2007-03-01 at 6:07:06, Pavel Roskin wrote: > Moreover, I think that incorrect use of locking is a remaining major > issue not covered by sparse. Hello, What particular locking usage rules would Sparse ideally check? I guess this would include finding double locking/unlocking errors. Are there other more important locking usage rules? Could locking errors in the kernel be potentially more serious than dereferencing an unchecked user pointer for example? Suhabe