From: Roland Dreier <rdreier@cisco.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: On some configs, sparse spinlock balance checking is broken
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 07:37:02 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <adavej5k6ld.fsf@cisco.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20070117063450.GC14027@elte.hu> (Ingo Molnar's message of "Wed, 17 Jan 2007 07:34:50 +0100")
> i think the right way to fix it might be to define a _spin_unlock()
> within those #ifdef branches, and then to define spin_lock as:
>
> static inline void spin_lock(spinlock_t *lock) __acquires(lock)
I tried a similar approach, but what got me was that sparse doesn't
pay attention to the "__acquires()" annotation there. However I now
realized that putting "__acquire()" inside the implementation of the
function (which sparse can see for inline functions) actually works.
And actually the lock stuff is OK, since it's not inlined -- it's the
unlock stuff that goes directly to the __raw versions. But something
like the following works for me; does it look OK to you?
---
diff --git a/include/linux/spinlock.h b/include/linux/spinlock.h
index 94b767d..8ec4142 100644
--- a/include/linux/spinlock.h
+++ b/include/linux/spinlock.h
@@ -228,15 +228,45 @@ do { \
# define read_unlock_irq(lock) _read_unlock_irq(lock)
# define write_unlock_irq(lock) _write_unlock_irq(lock)
#else
-# define spin_unlock(lock) __raw_spin_unlock(&(lock)->raw_lock)
-# define read_unlock(lock) __raw_read_unlock(&(lock)->raw_lock)
-# define write_unlock(lock) __raw_write_unlock(&(lock)->raw_lock)
-# define spin_unlock_irq(lock) \
- do { __raw_spin_unlock(&(lock)->raw_lock); local_irq_enable(); } while (0)
-# define read_unlock_irq(lock) \
- do { __raw_read_unlock(&(lock)->raw_lock); local_irq_enable(); } while (0)
-# define write_unlock_irq(lock) \
- do { __raw_write_unlock(&(lock)->raw_lock); local_irq_enable(); } while (0)
+static inline void spin_unlock(spinlock_t *lock)
+{
+ __release(lock);
+ __raw_spin_unlock(&(lock)->raw_lock);
+}
+
+static inline void read_unlock(rwlock_t *lock)
+{
+ __release(lock);
+ __raw_read_unlock(&(lock)->raw_lock);
+}
+
+static inline void write_unlock(rwlock_t *lock)
+{
+ __release(lock);
+ __raw_write_unlock(&(lock)->raw_lock);
+}
+
+static inline void spin_unlock_irq(spinlock_t *lock)
+{
+ __release(lock);
+ __raw_spin_unlock(&(lock)->raw_lock);
+ local_irq_enable();
+}
+
+static inline void read_unlock_irq(rwlock_t *lock)
+{
+ __release(lock);
+ __raw_read_unlock(&(lock)->raw_lock);
+ local_irq_enable();
+}
+
+static inline void write_unlock_irq(rwlock_t *lock)
+{
+ __release(lock);
+ __raw_write_unlock(&(lock)->raw_lock);
+ local_irq_enable();
+}
+
#endif
#define spin_unlock_irqrestore(lock, flags) \
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-01-17 15:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-01-16 23:47 On some configs, sparse spinlock balance checking is broken Roland Dreier
2007-01-17 6:34 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-01-17 15:37 ` Roland Dreier [this message]
2007-01-17 16:28 ` Ingo Molnar
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=adavej5k6ld.fsf@cisco.com \
--to=rdreier@cisco.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox