On Sat, Jun 03, 2017 at 08:37:21PM +0200, Luc Van Oostenryck wrote: > 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. Ah, yes, that's what I was thinking of. I don't know if sparse can track things like this across an exported symbol, so I doubt it really will help here. Sorry for the noise. thanks, greg k-h -- 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
