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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <20071023211337.GT27248@parisc-linux.org>
Date:	Tue, 23 Oct 2007 15:13:37 -0600
From:	Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
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, Oct 22, 2007 at 07:09:56PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 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!)

Thanks, I hadn't realised that sparse would unify the two declarations.

-- 
Intel are signing my paycheques ... these opinions are still mine
"Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this
operating system, but compare it to ours.  We can't possibly take such
a retrograde step."
-
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/