On Tue, 2024-03-26 at 10:39 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > 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 see. I guess that doesn't work for sparse. You write: This shouldn't really have been needed if I had written the parse.c code correctly to create new scopes for every __cleanup__. Would that maybe be a way to handle it in sparse? Though not sure how to return then. > > 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. OK, no fun. I think overall it's still easier to go with this patch :) And maybe we should think about replacing what we need sparse for... johannes
