[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANpmjNM_5dVaq8NatmTykGveUQGjWx2j4k8PQ92F=hSb+8NzAw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2025 09:29:34 +0100
From: Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>, Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>, Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>,
Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 03/33] locking: Introduce <linux/thread_safety.h>
On Fri, 7 Feb 2025 at 04:53, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de> wrote:
>
> > - a struct that represents a synchronization object is annotated with the
> > CAPABILITY() attribute,
> > - the operations on that synchronization object are annotated with the
> > ACQUIRE() and RELEASE() attributes,
> > - if variables or members that should be guarded by a synchronization
> > object are annotated with GUARDED_BY(),
>
> Those are all nasty shouting names, without and good prefixing.
>
> But more importantly ACQUIRE() and RELEASE() seems to duplicate the
> existing __acquires/__releases annotations from sparse. We really need
> to find away to unify them instead of duplicating the annotations.
This is exactly what my approach tries to do:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250206181711.1902989-1-elver@google.com/T/#u
(Make it work with the existing keywords and extend them.)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists