On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 08:34:27PM -0700, Harvey Harrison wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-05-13 at 20:24 -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 01:43:06PM -0700, akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > From: Harvey Harrison <harvey.harrison@xxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Harvey Harrison <harvey.harrison@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: Dmitry Torokhov <dtor@xxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >
> > > /* Must be called with ts->lock held */
> > > static void ads7846_disable(struct ads7846 *ts)
> > > +__releases(&ts->lock)
> > > +__acquires(&ts->lock)
> > > {
> >
> > I still haven't gotten any explanation why this is needed and also I am
> > still getting sparce warnings with this patch applied. Please drop.
> >
>
> Sorry, I didn't realize I had a local patchset doing extra context checking
> of what lock is passed in to spin_lock/unlock...it helps to document when a
> function requires a lock held (see the comment)
>
I understand the comment ;) The annotation syntax is confusing though...
Maybe if instead of __releases and __acquires it said __needs_lock() and
__leaves_locked() that would make more sense...
> The culprit in this function:
> while (ts->pending) {
> spin_unlock_irq(&ts->lock);
> msleep(1);
> spin_lock_irq(&ts->lock);
> }
>
> Anyways, as current sparse will still warn please drop.
>
> Harvey
>
--
Dmitry
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-input" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
