[lkml]   [2010]   [Nov]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [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
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2010-11-23 09:53    [W:0.020 / U:2.236 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site