Re: [PATCH 2/2] Introduce __cond_lock_err

[Josh Triplett]

+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).