On Mon, 2007-04-02 at 14:00 -0400, Pavel Roskin wrote: > 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. Oh. And I guess rtnl_lock/unlock would need to be annotated and not just the mutex operations (or are they inlines? I forgot) > 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. Yeah. The patch is probably not complete anyway. I just floated it to get some comments... johannes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
