> > IMHO the context extension doesn't work well enough in sparse to > > document and implement as is. It would be much better if it actually was > > able to differentiate between contexts, rather than treating each one > > the same. > > That would certainly be nice, but that's something actually much more > easily done in GCC than in Sparse, given the types of information GCC > already has available to implement features like alias analysis. Right. > In any case, the spec I wrote up assumes a distinction between contexts, > but allows for an initial implementation like Sparse's that ignores the > distinction. Ok cool. :) > > This would avoid the problem that locking one lock and > > unlocking another (in the kernel's __acquire/ __release mechanism) could > > still result in a warning. > > That would actually *not* produce a warning, though it should. In > general, I *think* an implementation like Sparse's that ignores the > distinction between locks should produce false negatives but not false > positives. Right, it doesn't report one now. johannes -- 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
