To test a function that can return a locked struct or NULL,
a macro has to be invented. Add a test case for that.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
This is a bit awkward but I don't see any good way to do it differently
since otherwise we'd have to track the assignment.
validation/context-vars.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++----
1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
--- sparse.orig/validation/context-vars.c 2008-04-27 14:10:37.000000000 +0200
+++ sparse/validation/context-vars.c 2008-04-27 14:14:25.000000000 +0200
@@ -1,3 +1,5 @@
+#include <stddef.h>
+
static void a(void *p) __attribute__((context(p,0,1)))
{
__context__(p,1);
@@ -159,13 +161,31 @@ static void good_locked_val(void)
;
}
+
+extern struct test *_search(int key);
+
+#define search(res, key) do {\
+ res = _search((key)); \
+ (res ? ({ __context__(&res->lock,1); res; }) : NULL); \
+ } while (0)
+
+static void test(void)
+{
+ struct test *x;
+
+ search(x, 32);
+ if (x)
+ unlock(x);
+}
+
+
/*
* check-name: Check -Wcontext with lock variables
*
* check-error-start
-context-vars.c:53:7: warning: context imbalance in 'warn_lock1': wrong count at exit
-context-vars.c:53:7: context '**v+4': wanted 0, got 1
-context-vars.c:137:11: warning: context problem in 'warn_unlock': 'unlock' expected different context
-context-vars.c:137:11: context '*t+0': wanted >= 1, got 0
+context-vars.c:55:7: warning: context imbalance in 'warn_lock1': wrong count at exit
+context-vars.c:55:7: context '**v+4': wanted 0, got 1
+context-vars.c:139:11: warning: context problem in 'warn_unlock': 'unlock' expected different context
+context-vars.c:139:11: context '*t+0': wanted >= 1, got 0
* check-error-end
*/
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sparse" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
