From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751625AbWGZOWo (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Jul 2006 10:22:44 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750737AbWGZOWo (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Jul 2006 10:22:44 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:8918 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751625AbWGZOWn (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Jul 2006 10:22:43 -0400 From: David Howells In-Reply-To: <1153787433.31581.41.camel@josh-work.beaverton.ibm.com> References: <1153787433.31581.41.camel@josh-work.beaverton.ibm.com> To: Josh Triplett Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , David Howells Subject: Re: [PATCH] [afs] Add lock annotations to afs_proc_cell_servers_{start,stop} X-Mailer: MH-E 8.0; nmh 1.1; GNU Emacs 22.0.50 Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 15:22:30 +0100 Message-ID: <14452.1153923750@warthog.cambridge.redhat.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Josh Triplett wrote: > afs_proc_cell_servers_start acquires a lock, and afs_proc_cell_servers_stop > releases that lock. Add lock annotations to these two functions so that > sparse can check callers for lock pairing, and so that sparse will not > complain about these functions since they intentionally use locks in this > manner. Looks reasonable, though I'm surprised you can get this sort of checking to work in sparse. Acked-By: David Howells