From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [198.175.65.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 256DD1D07BA for ; Wed, 16 Apr 2025 11:53:55 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.175.65.14 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1744804437; cv=none; b=HiK5JMhmyWBCFzHyMHZ5RGU/jbtWZYnXvLZUALm8HSuaA0yuk7/KyY/hBLLV45MhkX8s+7nYnu7XMu6zZW5xk0Pl+oaWKNUT2LWE/AeQHd00pMIbZYv+3fPmE3xH7du2srRtAN27lbVB9CbRpPX8blvZyVLDLp+spxyqHraweAE= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1744804437; c=relaxed/simple; bh=nEUAL9xfxZ1pm145l7SXqcMBvUT5FrwxSZx7ZWyaz/M=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=q8kWPViqkii1vrch5YsgFJrFXvUx8mkoU14dt2m+AXiVyMKUrL0Vo+c/dq/5RrMuvRoKRavec5XbLMF+WnGmsHmseTC/sdbhpa0OOJ6n5Qm2CF6oSWJt2BmkIjmZu85KL9ZGxeMtDgniD7MUaf0gvxYg5XKgMoi7RLJyHPQ28CY= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b=Vc44cQBe; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.175.65.14 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b="Vc44cQBe" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1744804436; x=1776340436; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:references:mime-version: in-reply-to; bh=nEUAL9xfxZ1pm145l7SXqcMBvUT5FrwxSZx7ZWyaz/M=; b=Vc44cQBeTfnW+m5ve3rOYbCS6JMuZ/a/smvLaaNUvWtiS2fLJHY2ZH+1 XnMa92qyZJ6JsdkrvQWz14to89o+HCcENEUCClBk36mWzUgam2/4iA877 KOX9ndDMzYxvhpmGZoYYYJozjlb/RHTns5Nwg3lwBxvKXckMGlcOtANX8 o7BBkPYqVTBH8zYDvNxwxHT10HtRiXGSZgV3jvkPA5fUzF9ftUHf27GUP JVFrk3X8Y4NC4ERwNZuGuYyvUgmyebk0IXQL6p3J4jCPHEzWMAfAiy5NZ jX/DZpMEhZa/Fcgi00PnklCwJDw3Cv/1XNArtKzVT5T5X9gfJGyMlr6/R Q==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: CUsubG9BTPyqemFr/0SO5w== X-CSE-MsgGUID: u5oW7oITQsuGI0UYMWXeQw== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6700,10204,11404"; a="50155696" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.15,216,1739865600"; d="scan'208";a="50155696" Received: from orviesa005.jf.intel.com ([10.64.159.145]) by orvoesa106.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 16 Apr 2025 04:53:50 -0700 X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: nsKKjB7zRDekJqfRWluubg== X-CSE-MsgGUID: leWa5SPtQYSV4on0QlVzdQ== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.15,216,1739865600"; d="scan'208";a="135619571" Received: from smile.fi.intel.com ([10.237.72.58]) by orviesa005.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 16 Apr 2025 04:53:49 -0700 Received: from andy by smile.fi.intel.com with local (Exim 4.98.2) (envelope-from ) id 1u51Ks-0000000CqHL-07Y8; Wed, 16 Apr 2025 14:53:46 +0300 Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2025 14:53:45 +0300 From: Andy Shevchenko To: Thomas Gleixner , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] genirq/irqdesc: Balance locking to make sparse happy Message-ID: References: <20250416114122.2191820-1-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> <20250416114122.2191820-3-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo On Wed, Apr 16, 2025 at 02:52:18PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Wed, Apr 16, 2025 at 02:40:34PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > Sparse is not happy right now about conditional locking and > > complains: > > > > irqdesc.c:899:17: warning: context imbalance in '__irq_get_desc_lock' - wrong count at exit > > > > Refactor the code and use __acquire() to make it happy. > > Annotate the function that it acquires the lock in the > > similar way how __irq_put_desc_unlock() is marked. > > Oh, scratch this, it basically will diminish the idea for the users. That said, the first patch is okay, in case you want it. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko