On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 09:44:52AM -0500, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 04:25:19PM -0800, paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > From: Jules Irenge <jbi.octave@xxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Sparse reports a warning at exit_tasks_rcu_start(void)
> >
> > |warning: context imbalance in exit_tasks_rcu_start() - wrong count at exit
> >
> > To fix this, this commit adds an __acquires(&tasks_rcu_exit_srcu).
> > Given that exit_tasks_rcu_start() does actually call __srcu_read_lock(),
> > this not only fixes the warning but also improves on the readability of
> > the code.
>
> For patch 1/3 and 2/3:
>
> Reviewed-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Applied, thank you!
> Though IMO it would be good to squash both the patches.
Fair point, but I will leave them be. ;-)
Thanx, Paul
> thanks,
>
> - Joel
>
>
> > Signed-off-by: Jules Irenge <jbi.octave@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > kernel/rcu/update.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/update.c b/kernel/rcu/update.c
> > index a27df76..a04fe54 100644
> > --- a/kernel/rcu/update.c
> > +++ b/kernel/rcu/update.c
> > @@ -801,7 +801,7 @@ static int __init rcu_spawn_tasks_kthread(void)
> > core_initcall(rcu_spawn_tasks_kthread);
> >
> > /* Do the srcu_read_lock() for the above synchronize_srcu(). */
> > -void exit_tasks_rcu_start(void)
> > +void exit_tasks_rcu_start(void) __acquires(&tasks_rcu_exit_srcu)
> > {
> > preempt_disable();
> > current->rcu_tasks_idx = __srcu_read_lock(&tasks_rcu_exit_srcu);
> > --
> > 2.9.5
> >
