On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 04:51:59PM +0000, Dilger, Andreas wrote: > On 2015/05/18, 3:21 PM, "Dan Carpenter" <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > >On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 08:34:51PM +0200, Adrian Remonda wrote: > >> Fixed sparse warning: context imbalance in 'nrs_resource_put_safe' - > >> 'different lock contexts for basic block' by releasing the lock on each > >> iteration of the for loop. > >> > > > >That changelog doesn't sound correct at all. That's not a correct > >motivation or explanation. > > > >I reviewed the patch and it's likely going to cause dead locks. The code > >is trying to take the spinlock for the first pointer in the array and > >release it at the end. Now it takes the first pointer's spinlock a > >bunch of times (dead lock) and releases it once (will not happen because > >we are already dead). > > It isn't clear to me what the checkpatch complaint actually means? Is it > that the spin_lock() and spin_unlock() calls have different amounts of > indentation? > It's not a checkpatch.pl warning, it's a Sparse warning. Sparse is crappy at reporting locking bugs. It's mostly false positives. I think it's saying that some paths lock and unlock some don't. Smatch is also fairly crappy at finding locking bugs, unfortunately. I need to re-write it using modern features and cross function analysis. regards, dan carpenter _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
