On Sat, Jun 3, 2017 at 12:26 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 09:51:03PM +0200, Peter Rosin wrote: >> From: Peter Rosin <peda@xxxxxxxxxx> >> >> Hi Greg, >> >> Philipp found problems in v14 with using a mutex for locking that was >> the outcome of the review for v13, so I'm now using a semaphore instead >> of the rwsem that was in v13. That at least got rid of the scary call >> to downgrade_write. However, I'm still unsure about what you actually >> meant with your comment about lack of sparse markings [1]. I did add >> __must_check to the funcs that selects the mux, but I've got this >> feeling that this is not what you meant? > > I thought there was a way to mark a function as requiring a lock be held > when it is being called. Does sparse not support that anymore? sparse still support these annotations, of course. In this case, I suppose you're talking about '__must_hold()' which *must* be used instead of a pair of '__releases()' + '__acquires()' when the lock is help on function entry and exit. Cheers, -- Luc Van Oostenryck -- 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
