lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Jun]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v15 00/13] mux controller abstraction and iio/i2c muxes
On Sat, Jun 3, 2017 at 12:26 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
<gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 09:51:03PM +0200, Peter Rosin wrote:
>> From: Peter Rosin <peda@axentia.se>
>>
>> Hi Greg,
>>
>> Philipp found problems in v14 with using a mutex for locking that was
>> the outcome of the review for v13, so I'm now using a semaphore instead
>> of the rwsem that was in v13. That at least got rid of the scary call
>> to downgrade_write. However, I'm still unsure about what you actually
>> meant with your comment about lack of sparse markings [1]. I did add
>> __must_check to the funcs that selects the mux, but I've got this
>> feeling that this is not what you meant?
>
> I thought there was a way to mark a function as requiring a lock be held
> when it is being called. Does sparse not support that anymore?

sparse still support these annotations, of course.
In this case, I suppose you're talking about '__must_hold()' which
*must* be used instead of a pair of '__releases()' + '__acquires()'
when the lock is help on function entry and exit.

Cheers,
-- Luc Van Oostenryck

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-06-05 00:17    [W:2.117 / U:0.316 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site