Message-ID: <4CEB8034.80400@fusionio.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 09:49:56 +0100
From: Jens Axboe <jaxboe@fusionio.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@gmail.com>
CC: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] generic-ipi: add lock context annotations
References: <1290411232-11439-1-git-send-email-namhyung@gmail.com>	 <1290430003.2072.101.camel@laptop> <1290482390.1857.26.camel@leonhard>
In-Reply-To: <1290482390.1857.26.camel@leonhard>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1197
Lines: 31

On 2010-11-23 04:19, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> 2010-11-22 (월), 13:46 +0100, Peter Zijlstra:
>> On Mon, 2010-11-22 at 16:33 +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:
>>> The ipi_call_[un]lock[_irq] functions grab/release a spin lock
>>> but were missing proper annotations. Add it.
>>
>> I really have to ask why bother? Why not add some smarts to whatever
>> uses these annotations?
> 
> I just thought that removing bogus warnings from sparse helps us focus
> on real issues when using it. Currently sparse emits too many messages
> and some (many?) of them might be removed trivially (or by adding bit of
> ugliness. :( )

It's not too big a deal, I have no problem adding the annotation.

> BTW, I didn't get what you mean about "some smarts". Could you explain
> them little more?

I guess what Peter means is that the fact that the function grabs the
lock is apparent in the code, if sparse was a bit "smarter", it would
see and note this itself.

-- 
Jens Axboe

--
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/