Re: [PATCH 2/2] Introduce __cond_lock_err

[Matthew Wilcox]

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).