From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752028Ab0CYVcR (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Mar 2010 17:32:17 -0400 Received: from c60.cesmail.net ([216.154.195.49]:58359 "EHLO c60.cesmail.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751227Ab0CYVcP (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Mar 2010 17:32:15 -0400 Subject: [PATCH TRY2] locking: annotate inline spinlocks and rwlocks on SMP From: Pavel Roskin To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: Ingo Molnar , Josh Triplett Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 17:32:14 -0400 Message-Id: <1269552734.2626.33.camel@mj> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.26.3 (2.26.3-1.fc11) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hello! My patch at https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/84441/ didn't get any replies. Bogus sparse warnings actually make developers change spin_lock() to spin_lock_irqsave() to placate sparse, as it could be seen here: http://marc.info/?l=linux-wireless&m=126954991321895&w=2 That's a patch I noticed because I read linux-wireless. I think it's a safe bet that it's not the only patch inspired by the bogus sparse warnings. Locking is hard already, and we don't want sparse to confuse developers even more. Linux code quality suffers because of that. If there are any people or lists I should forward my patch to, please let me know. -- Regards, Pavel Roskin