You could, for example, insert this:
> static void mlx4_ib_lock_cqs(struct mlx4_ib_cq *send_cq, struct mlx4_ib_cq *recv_cq)
> {
> if (send_cq == recv_cq)
{
> spin_lock_irq(&send_cq->lock);
/* pretend to have acquired both for sparse */
__acquire(&recv_cq->lock);
}
> else if (send_cq->mcq.cqn < recv_cq->mcq.cqn) {
> spin_lock_irq(&send_cq->lock);
> spin_lock_nested(&recv_cq->lock, SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING);
> } else {
> spin_lock_irq(&recv_cq->lock);
> spin_lock_nested(&send_cq->lock, SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING);
> }
> }
and then declare that you take "both" locks. Not sure if that will bite
you in the callers again though.
The exact syntax is still a bit under discussion though, whether to use
&recv_cq->lock or leave out the "&" there, I'm favouring the approach
with & but the kernel uses no & in some places.
johannes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
