On Wed, 13 May 2009, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > > > /* 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...
I fully agree. __acquires() and __releases() is used to annotate a
completely different thing -- it should be used solely to avoid false
positives about locking inbalances across functions (i.e. one function
deliberately not unlocking lock that it has locked), shoudldn't it?
--
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs
--
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
