From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from crystal.sipsolutions.net ([195.210.38.204]:42934 "EHLO sipsolutions.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965624AbXDBSQZ (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Apr 2007 14:16:25 -0400 Subject: Re: cfg80211 wext compat w/o wext code changes, rtnl locking From: Johannes Berg To: Pavel Roskin Cc: Michael Buesch , linux-wireless , James Ketrenos In-Reply-To: <1175536859.25048.6.camel@dv> References: <1175122815.8807.21.camel@johannes.berg> <200703301211.05261.mb@bu3sch.de> <1175251051.19085.2.camel@johannes.berg> <1175536859.25048.6.camel@dv> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-u3E/pCkdl5wIape0UZK7" Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2007 20:15:41 +0200 Message-Id: <1175537741.16379.1.camel@johannes.berg> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: --=-u3E/pCkdl5wIape0UZK7 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, 2007-04-02 at 14:00 -0400, Pavel Roskin wrote: > Just for your information, rtnl_lock() is actually a mutex. Neither > rtnl_lock() nor any mutex operation are annotated to give sparse any > idea of what they are doing. Oh. And I guess rtnl_lock/unlock would need to be annotated and not just the mutex operations (or are they inlines? I forgot) > If sparse learns about mutexes, expect it to give a warning. Please > consider if the code between rtnl_lock() and rtnl_unlock() could be > moved to a separate function so that locking and unlocking would happen > in the same basic block. Yeah. The patch is probably not complete anyway. I just floated it to get some comments... johannes --=-u3E/pCkdl5wIape0UZK7 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: Johannes Berg (powerbook) iD8DBQBGEUhN/ETPhpq3jKURAqIvAKCgbcZEUxItTjqnCadmsiG5fiYulwCgj5PM ydVBHz0bcfkiQm0iNpVleMc= =XFYb -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-u3E/pCkdl5wIape0UZK7--