From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1751139AbdLWJj0 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Sat, 23 Dec 2017 04:39:26 -0500
Received: from relay2-d.mail.gandi.net ([217.70.183.194]:51742 "EHLO
        relay2-d.mail.gandi.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1750713AbdLWJjU (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Sat, 23 Dec 2017 04:39:20 -0500
X-Originating-IP: 50.39.166.153
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2017 01:39:11 -0800
From: Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Cc: Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@linux.intel.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, Matthew Wilcox <mawilcox@microsoft.com>,
        linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Introduce __cond_lock_err
Message-ID: <20171223093910.GB6160@localhost>
References: <20171219165823.24243-1-willy@infradead.org>
 <20171219165823.24243-2-willy@infradead.org>
 <20171221214810.GC9087@linux.intel.com>
 <20171222011000.GB23624@bombadil.infradead.org>
 <20171222042120.GA18036@localhost>
 <20171222123112.GA6401@bombadil.infradead.org>
 <20171222133634.GE6401@bombadil.infradead.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20171222133634.GE6401@bombadil.infradead.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.2 (2017-12-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

+linux-sparse

On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 05:36:34AM -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 04:31:12AM -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 08:21:20PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > > On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 05:10:00PM -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > > Yes, but this define is only #if __CHECKER__, so it doesn't matter what we
> > > > return as this code will never run.
> > > 
> > > It does matter slightly, as Sparse does some (very limited) value-based
> > > analyses. Let's future-proof it.
> > > 
> > > > That said, if sparse supports the GNU syntax of ?: then I have no
> > > > objection to doing that.
> > > 
> > > Sparse does support that syntax.
> > 
> > Great, I'll fix that and resubmit.
> 
> Except the context imbalance warning comes back if I do.  This is sparse
> 0.5.1 (Debian's 0.5.1-2 package).