linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] generic-ipi: add lock context annotations

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: <1290482390.1857.26.camel@leonhard>
Date:	Tue, 23 Nov 2010 12:19:50 +0900
From:	Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...il.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
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

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. :( )

BTW, I didn't get what you mean about "some smarts". Could you explain
them little more?

Thanks.

-- 
Regards,
Namhyung Kim


--
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/