From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]:49611 "EHLO fencepost.gnu.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965654AbXDBSXI (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Apr 2007 14:23:08 -0400 Received: from proski by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1HYR9B-00021s-9d for linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org; Mon, 02 Apr 2007 14:20:53 -0400 Subject: Re: cfg80211 wext compat w/o wext code changes, rtnl locking From: Pavel Roskin To: Johannes Berg Cc: Michael Buesch , linux-wireless , James Ketrenos In-Reply-To: <1175537741.16379.1.camel@johannes.berg> References: <1175122815.8807.21.camel@johannes.berg> <200703301211.05261.mb@bu3sch.de> <1175251051.19085.2.camel@johannes.berg> <1175536859.25048.6.camel@dv> <1175537741.16379.1.camel@johannes.berg> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2007 14:23:05 -0400 Message-Id: <1175538185.25048.10.camel@dv> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, 2007-04-02 at 20:15 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: > 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) They are not inlines. Either way, sparse would require annotating them if mutexes are to be tracked the way it's done for spinlocks. -- Regards, Pavel Roskin