[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1290430003.2072.101.camel@laptop>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 13:46:43 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...il.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jens Axboe <jaxboe@...ionio.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] generic-ipi: add lock context annotations
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?
> Signed-off-by: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...il.com>
> ---
> kernel/smp.c | 4 ++++
> 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/smp.c b/kernel/smp.c
> index 12ed8b0..5a62f1f 100644
> --- a/kernel/smp.c
> +++ b/kernel/smp.c
> @@ -511,21 +511,25 @@ int smp_call_function(smp_call_func_t func, void *info, int wait)
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(smp_call_function);
>
> void ipi_call_lock(void)
> + __acquires(call_function.lock)
> {
> raw_spin_lock(&call_function.lock);
> }
>
> void ipi_call_unlock(void)
> + __releases(call_function.lock)
> {
> raw_spin_unlock(&call_function.lock);
> }
>
> void ipi_call_lock_irq(void)
> + __acquires(call_function.lock)
> {
> raw_spin_lock_irq(&call_function.lock);
> }
>
> void ipi_call_unlock_irq(void)
> + __releases(call_function.lock)
> {
> raw_spin_unlock_irq(&call_function.lock);
> }
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists