Re: [PATCH 10/10] oom: Make find_lock_task_mm() sparse-aware

[Anton Vorontsov]

On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 01:52:54PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
[...]
> > p.s. I know Peter Zijlstra detest the __cond_lock() stuff, but untill
> >      we have anything better in sparse, let's use it. This particular
> >      patch helped me to detect one bug that I myself made during
> >      task->mm fixup series. So, it is useful.
> 
> Yeah, so Nacked-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@xxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Also, why didn't lockdep catch it?

Because patch authors test their patches on architectures they own
(well, sometimes I do check patches on exotic architectures w/ qemu,
but it is less convenient than just build/sparse-test the patch w/
a cross compiler).

And since lockdep is a runtime checker, it is not very useful.

Sparse is a build-time checker, so it is even better in the sense
that it is able to catch bugs even in code that is executed rarely.

> Fix sparse already instead of smearing ugly all over.

Just wonder how do you see the feature implemented?

Something like this?

#define __ret_cond_locked(l, c)	__attribute__((ret_cond_locked(l, c)))
#define __ret_value		__attribute__((ret_value))
#define __ret_locked_nonnull(l)	__ret_cond_locked(l, __ret_value);

extern struct task_struct *find_lock_task_mm(struct task_struct *p)
	__ret_locked_nonnull(&__ret_value->alloc_lock);

Thanks,

-- 
Anton Vorontsov
Email: cbouatmailru@xxxxxxxxx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/