Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Mon, 12 Feb 2007, Christopher Li wrote: >>> - it shows the *programmer* that the function is doing somethign >>> "strange" (not really strange, but still: it's basically a fairly >>> readable way that it's doing locking in a weird way). >> Should the function declare in the header file has that as well? > > Yes. > >> When call one of those functions, it can know that function will change >> context. That might be a way to solve the problem that some of the >> spinlock function is not a inline function at all. > > I thought we did that already. I'm fairly sure I had this working at some > point - exactly by having the calls just add up the (known) lock/unlock > offsets. On the other hand, the code currently does not check the context preconditions of the callee; Sparse *could* check that any function requiring you to hold a lock (have a context of 1) must only get called from a context in which you hold that lock (have that context). Instead, Sparse only checks the context change, rather than the incoming context value at the call site. It seems trivial to add a check for context preconditions, and Linux could then have a new annotation for __must_hold(lock) (usable on both functions and data), but that check would also add numerous false positives caused by lack of annotation, and that problem seems better solved by interprocedural analysis than pervasive annotation. Thoughts? - Josh Triplett
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
