> but the problem sparse sees is not that some paths take only one lock
> and some take two -- sparse is complaining that this function is
> returning without unlocking the locks that it takes. Even if I change
> the function to something as simple as:
>
> static void mlx4_ib_lock_cqs(struct mlx4_ib_cq *send_cq, struct mlx4_ib_cq *recv_cq)
> {
> spin_lock_irq(&recv_cq->lock);
> }
>
> I still get
>
> drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx4/qp.c:603:13: warning: context imbalance in 'mlx4_ib_lock_cqs' - wrong count at exitn
Oh. Well yes, you also have to annotate the function:
static void mlx4_ib_lock_cqs(struct mlx4_ib_cq *send_cq, struct mlx4_ib_cq *recv_cq)
__acquires(&recv_cq->lock) __acquires(&send_cq->lock)
{
...
}
but we're still discussing whether the & should be in there or not. I'd
think right now is a bad time for you to be working on this unless you
want to help with how sparse should behave too.
johannes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
