Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 22 Oct 2007 19:09:56 -0700 (PDT) | From | Linus Torvalds <> | Subject | Re: Sparse fix for scsi_request_fn |
| |
On Mon, 22 Oct 2007, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > Introduce new __holds() macro to tell sparse it's OK to drop and then > reacquire a lock within a function. Use it in scsi_request_fn.
Umm. This is why we write things like
static void double_lock_balance(struct rq *this_rq, struct rq *busiest) __releases(this_rq->lock) __acquires(busiest->lock) __acquires(this_rq->lock) { ...
ie your "__holds()" is nothing new, and should be written as a pair of __releases(x) and __acquires(x), which is more readable anyway (since it actually says what the function does!)
Linus - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |