> On 18 September 2014 at 22:44 Theodore Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 08:29:34PM +0200, Fabian Frederick wrote: > > spin_unlock after spin_lock only. > > > > This fixes the following sparse warning: > > fs/jbd2/transaction.c:1102:20: warning: context imbalance > > in 'jbd2_journal_get_create_access' - different lock contexts for basic > > block > > > > Signed-off-by: Fabian Frederick <fabf@xxxxxxxxx> > > NAK, this is a case where I think it's better to make the static > analyzers better. In any case sparse gives a lot of false positives > for this particular warning, so adding lines of code to try to shut up > sparse for every single false positive seems to be a losing > proposition. > > I'll note that these sorts of bugs are much more easily picked up > using lockdep in any case, so we're probably better of just ignoring > these sorts of warnings. Better to let the 0day kernel tester warn > for new sparse warnings, instead of trying to drive sparse warnings > down to zero. > > Cheers, > > - Ted Thanks a lot for explanation Ted. I didn't see J_ASSERT_JH above which BUG_ON if b_transaction is not ok. Regards, Fabian -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
