Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 23 Nov 2010 09:49:56 +0100 | From | Jens Axboe <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] generic-ipi: add lock context annotations |
| |
On 2010-11-23 04:19, Namhyung Kim wrote: > 2010-11-22 (월), 13:46 +0100, Peter Zijlstra: >> On Mon, 2010-11-22 at 16:33 +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote: >>> The ipi_call_[un]lock[_irq] functions grab/release a spin lock >>> but were missing proper annotations. Add it. >> >> I really have to ask why bother? Why not add some smarts to whatever >> uses these annotations? > > I just thought that removing bogus warnings from sparse helps us focus > on real issues when using it. Currently sparse emits too many messages > and some (many?) of them might be removed trivially (or by adding bit of > ugliness. :( )
It's not too big a deal, I have no problem adding the annotation.
> BTW, I didn't get what you mean about "some smarts". Could you explain > them little more?
I guess what Peter means is that the fact that the function grabs the lock is apparent in the code, if sparse was a bit "smarter", it would see and note this itself.
-- Jens Axboe
-- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |