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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1290611021.1675.26.camel@leonhard>
Date:	Thu, 25 Nov 2010 00:03:41 +0900
From:	Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...il.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
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

2010-11-24 (수), 15:33 +0100, Peter Zijlstra:
> Aside from complain, do these sparse annotations ever catch a bug?
> 

Dunno, sorry. I only have very limited experience of kernel development.

> 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.

Yes, it's very ugly. But some people told me it's a better way to
describe conditional lock acquisition from complicated functions. It
helped sparse recognize normal usage of such functions and suppress
warnings but only warn themselves.


-- 
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/