On Fri, 2018-02-16 at 17:51 +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > >> +static unsigned long bnxt_re_lock_cqs(struct bnxt_re_qp *qp)
> > >> + __acquires(&qp->scq->cq_lock) __acquires(&qp->rcq->cq_lock)
> > >> +{
> > >> + unsigned long flags;
> > >> +
> > >> + spin_lock_irqsave(&qp->scq->cq_lock, flags);
> > >> + if (qp->rcq != qp->scq)
> > >> + spin_lock(&qp->rcq->cq_lock);
> > >> + else
> > >> + __acquire(&qp->rcq->cq_lock);
> > >
> > > Sorry for naive question, why do you need __acquire/__release? And why
> > > can't spin_is_locked(&qp->rcq->cq_lock) be used for unlock code?
> > >
> > I used __acquire and __release for satisfying the sparse. Sparse used to
> > give warnings "context imbalance - wrong count at exit" since the locking
> > and unlocking happens from two different functions. seen similar implementation
> > in other drivers too.
>
> I see, actually I think that sparse complain was right and you went to
> far by wrapping standard calls. I see that it is very popular in bnxt_re
> code and the problem with that, that it makes very hard to refactor such
> code in case of some global change/improvement.
Leon, are you actually objecting here, or just noting that you would
prefer a different style?
--
Doug Ledford <dledford@xxxxxxxxxx>
GPG KeyID: B826A3330E572FDD
Key fingerprint = AE6B 1BDA 122B 23B4 265B 1274 B826 A333 0E57 2FDDAttachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
