On Fri, 2007-03-30 at 12:37 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-03-30 at 12:11 +0200, Michael Buesch wrote:
> > On Thursday 29 March 2007 01:00, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > > - if(handler != NULL) {
> > > + if (handler) {
> > > + if (!dev->wireless_handlers->no_locking)
> > > + rtnl_lock();
> >
> > Is sparse OK with this conditional locking?
>
> I also thought it wasn't but it didn't complain. The only reason why I
> didn't just duplicate the code was the deep indentation here...
Just for your information, rtnl_lock() is actually a mutex. Neither
rtnl_lock() nor any mutex operation are annotated to give sparse any
idea of what they are doing.
If sparse learns about mutexes, expect it to give a warning. Please
consider if the code between rtnl_lock() and rtnl_unlock() could be
moved to a separate function so that locking and unlocking would happen
in the same basic block.
--
Regards,
Pavel Roskin
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
