[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1290609214.2072.476.camel@laptop>
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 15:33:34 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...il.com>
Cc: Dan Carpenter <error27@...il.com>,
Jens Axboe <jaxboe@...ionio.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] generic-ipi: add lock context annotations
On Wed, 2010-11-24 at 23:29 +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> 2010-11-24 (수), 08:43 +0300, Dan Carpenter:
> > On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 02:24:40PM +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> > > 2010-11-23 (화), 12:40 +0300, Dan Carpenter:
> > > > On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 09:49:56AM +0100, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > >
> > > I tried to annotate declations in include/linux/smp.h but it didn't work
> > > well. Maybe that's what we need to fix the sparse?
> > >
> >
> > It worked for me earlier when I tested it. Just add the exact same
> > annotations that you added to the .c file.
> >
> > regards,
> > dan carpenter
> >
>
> OK. You mean annotating both .c and .h, right? Will send v2 soon.
Aside from complain, do these sparse annotations ever catch a bug?
I don't particularly like the __acquire() and __release() tags, but
could possibly live with them when they only need to be in headers, but
the __cond_lock() crap is just revolting.
--
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