On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 07:43:18PM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Mon, 2024-03-25 at 21:28 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 05:41:22PM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote: > > > Also __acquire()/__release() are just empty macros without __CHECKER__. > > > So not sure the indirection really is warranted for this special case. > > > > > > I can add a comment in there, I guess, something like > > > > > > /* sparse doesn't actually "call" cleanup functions */ > > > > > > perhaps. That reminds me I forgot to CC Dan ... > > > > > > > These are Sparse warnings, not Smatch warning... Smatch doesn't use any > > of the Sparse locking annotations. > > Sure, of course. I just saw that you added cleanup stuff to sparse to > allow using it in smatch. > > > Smatch handles cleanup basically correctly at this point. > > Do you "run" / "emit" the cleanup function calls there? Yes. > I briefly look > at doing that in sparse but it felt ... complicated, and then I saw the > condition in the cleanup function which I thought sparse could probably > not see through anyway. The if (_T->lock) statements are a problem. For those, I have to manually add them to check_locking.c as an unlock function and to check_preempt.c as a decrement the preempt count function. The other place that I have to add them is to smatch_data/db/kernel.return_fixes because the scoped_guard() macros checks them as well. I had to do quite a bit of patching things up when the sound subsystem started using cleanup.h so here is an example of what that looks like: https://github.com/error27/smatch/commit/a2f68c96f70a0cdc581beff81eb6d412ac8dfc4f regards, dan carpenter
