On Saturday 21 March 2009 12:34:26 Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Sat, 2009-03-21 at 12:20 +0100, Michael Buesch wrote:
>
> > > > > +#if 0
> > > > > +#include <linux/mutex.h>
> > > > > +#define mutex_lock(m) do { mutex_lock(m); __acquire(m); } while (0)
> > > > > +#define mutex_unlock(m) do { mutex_unlock(m); __release(m); } while (0)
> > > > > +#endif
> > > > > +
> > > > > +#endif /* __USB_H */
> > > >
> > > > Whoops, debugging code? :)
> > >
> > > sparse, for some reason mutex operations aren't annotated... Probably
> > > because Ingo wrote the code...
> >
> > Well I think it would currently generate lots of errors, because we have
> > code like this in the kernel:
> >
> > if (x)
> > mutex_lock();
> > ...
> > if (x)
> > mutex_unlock();
>
> That's sloppy code anyway. Not to be encouraged.
That's not true. Sometimes it is the cleanest way to do things.
Look at drivers/ssb/main.c. To make this mutex-sparse compliant, we'd
need to introduce quite a few sub-functions.
It simply is a limitation of sparse. Nothing else.
--
Greetings, Michael.
--
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
