On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 08:53:39AM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote: > 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 think I was just wrong when I wrote that. But I'm not really sure how this is normally handled by the compiler. regards, dan carpenter
