linux-kernel - Re: Sparse fix for scsi_request

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.0.999.0710221908130.30120@woody.linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Mon, 22 Oct 2007 19:09:56 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>
cc:	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...eleye.com>,
	Al Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Sparse fix for scsi_request_fn



On Mon, 22 Oct 2007, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>
> Introduce new __holds() macro to tell sparse it's OK to drop and then
> reacquire a lock within a function.  Use it in scsi_request_fn.

Umm. This is why we write things like

	static void double_lock_balance(struct rq *this_rq, struct rq *busiest)
		__releases(this_rq->lock)
		__acquires(busiest->lock)
		__acquires(this_rq->lock)
	{
		...

ie your "__holds()" is nothing new, and should be written as 
a pair of __releases(x) and __acquires(x), which is more readable anyway 
(since it actually says what the function does!)

		Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/