Matthew Wilcox (on Sat, 2 Aug 2008 19:32:00 -0600) wrote: >On Sun, Aug 03, 2008 at 10:06:58AM +1000, Simon Horman wrote: >> salinfo_work_to_do() intentionally ignores the return value of >> down_trylock() and calls up() regardless of if the lock >> was taken or not. >> >> This patch suppresses the warning generated by ignoring >> this return value - down_trylock() is annotated with __must_check. > >I can't say that I think this is a good idea. Has anyone looked at what >it would take to actually track this? For example, could we ever have >the situation where: > >task A acquires sem > >task B tries to acquire the sem, fails >task B releases the sem that it didn't acquire > >task A releases the sem, falls down, goes boom? Cannot happen. See the comment above the function: This routine must be called with data_saved_lock held, to make the down/up operation atomic -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
|