On 2017-04-20 23:53, Peter Rosin wrote: > On 2017-04-18 23:53, Peter Rosin wrote: >> On 2017-04-18 13:44, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: >>> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 12:59:50PM +0200, Peter Rosin wrote: >>>> On 2017-04-18 10:51, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: >>>>> On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 06:43:07PM +0200, Peter Rosin wrote: > > *snip* > >>>>>> + if (mux->idle_state != MUX_IDLE_AS_IS && >>>>>> + mux->idle_state != mux->cached_state) >>>>>> + ret = mux_control_set(mux, mux->idle_state); >>>>>> + >>>>>> + up_read(&mux->lock); >>>>> >>>>> You require a lock to be held for a "global" function? Without >>>>> documentation? Or even a sparse marking? That's asking for trouble... >>>> >>>> Documentation I can handle, but where should I look to understand how I >>>> should add sparse markings? >>> >>> Run sparse on the code and see what it says :) >> >> Will do. > > I just did, and even went through the trouble of getting the bleeding > edge sparse from the git repo when sparse 0.5.0 came up empty, but it's > all silence for me. So, how do I add sparse markings? I looked some more into this, and the markings I find that seem related are __acquire() and __release(). But neither mutex_lock() nor up_read() has markings like that, so adding them when using those kinds of locks in an imbalanced way seems like a sure way of *getting* sparse messages about context imbalance... So, either that, or you are talking about __must_check markings? I feel like I'm missing something, please advise further. Cheers, peda -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
