Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-118490-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
Message-ID: <0659e47eb33c4159168abe392764a1de44e9bc71.camel@sipsolutions.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rcu: mollify sparse with RCU guard
From: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
To: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@linaro.org>
Cc: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>, rcu@vger.kernel.org, 
 linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>, 
 Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>, Josh Triplett
 <josh@joshtriplett.org>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2024 08:53:39 +0100
In-Reply-To: <04081c65-f9bf-404c-8557-7af72f6a72de@moroto.mountain>
References: <20240325101626.41584-2-johannes@sipsolutions.net>
	 <ZgGnuFJiTX5laS7c@boqun-archlinux>
	 <055111792727869a98c1fa693014e0b6f5d256ea.camel@sipsolutions.net>
	 <35355d02-3eef-4860-847b-b7bbf05f4a31@moroto.mountain>
	 <48034addaeb6c33ca8b3e636262b6c043ddc5359.camel@sipsolutions.net>
	 <04081c65-f9bf-404c-8557-7af72f6a72de@moroto.mountain>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
User-Agent: Evolution 3.50.4 (3.50.4-1.fc39) 
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0

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 __CHECKE=
R__.
> > > > So not sure the indirection really is warranted for this special ca=
se.
> > > >=20
> > > > I can add a comment in there, I guess, something like
> > > >=20
> > > >  /* sparse doesn't actually "call" cleanup functions */
> > > >=20
> > > > perhaps. That reminds me I forgot to CC Dan ...
> > > >=20
> > >=20
> > > These are Sparse warnings, not Smatch warning... Smatch doesn't use a=
ny
> > > of the Sparse locking annotations.
> >=20
> > Sure, of course. I just saw that you added cleanup stuff to sparse to
> > allow using it in smatch.
> >=20
> > > Smatch handles cleanup basically correctly at this point.
> >=20
> > Do you "run" / "emit" the cleanup function calls there?
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> 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