lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Jul]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH RESEND] spin_lock_*(): Always evaluate second argument
On Tue, 22 Jul 2014 09:17:45 +0200 Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org> wrote:

> Evaluating a macro argument only if certain configuration options
> have been selected is confusing and error-prone. Hence always
> evaluate the second argument of spin_lock_nested() and
> spin_lock_nest_lock().
>
> An intentional side effect of this patch is that it avoids that
> the following warning is reported for netif_addr_lock_nested()
> when building with CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC=n and with W=1:
>
> ...
>
> --- a/include/linux/spinlock.h
> +++ b/include/linux/spinlock.h
> @@ -197,8 +197,10 @@ static inline void do_raw_spin_unlock(raw_spinlock_t *lock) __releases(lock)
> _raw_spin_lock_nest_lock(lock, &(nest_lock)->dep_map); \
> } while (0)
> #else
> -# define raw_spin_lock_nested(lock, subclass) _raw_spin_lock(lock)
> -# define raw_spin_lock_nest_lock(lock, nest_lock) _raw_spin_lock(lock)
> +# define raw_spin_lock_nested(lock, subclass) \
> + ((void)(subclass), _raw_spin_lock(lock))
> +# define raw_spin_lock_nest_lock(lock, nest_lock) \
> + ((void)(nest_lock), _raw_spin_lock(lock))
> #endif
>

Did you try converting these to static inline functions? That should
squish the warning and makes the code nicer instead of nastier...



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-07-22 23:21    [W:0.072 / U:2.184 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site