[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.22.394.2006050829250.4212@earth2.lan>
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2020 08:42:35 +0100 (BST)
From: "ý" <jbi.octave@...il.com>
To: Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@...il.com>
cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Jules Irenge <jbi.octave@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
paulmck@...nel.org, mingo@...hat.com, boqun.feng@...il.com,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" <x86@...nel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] x86/ftrace: Add annotations for ftrace_arch_code_modify_prepare()
and ftrace_arch_code_modify_post_process()
On Wed, 3 Jun 2020, Luc Van Oostenryck wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 01, 2020 at 03:46:47PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>> On Mon, 1 Jun 2020 19:45:51 +0100
>> Jules Irenge <jbi.octave@...il.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Sparse reports warnings
>>>
>>> warning: context imbalance in ftrace_arch_code_modify_prepare()
>>> - wrong count at exit
>>> warning: context imbalance in ftrace_arch_code_modify_post_process()
>>> - wrong count at exit
>>>
>>> The root cause is that even if
>>> the annotations on the function are correct,
>>> mutex do not support annotation
>
> Yes.
>
>> Wait what? This looks like either a bug in sparse, or we just remove the
>> annotations. This just makes the code ugly, and looks silly.
>
> The annotations added by commit
> 074376ac0e1d ("ftrace/x86: Anotate text_mutex split between ...
> are indeed wrong (because they don't match what the functions are
> really doing / mutex operations have never been annotated).
> The're also pointless since their prototypes are un-annotated.
Interesting, I would think the best way would then be to remove the
annotations. There are quite a number of them.
I will have to investigate more on mutex and annotation before moving
forward.
Thanks for feedback.
Jules
Powered by blists - more mailing lists