Re: [PATCH v5 08/36] locking/rwlock, spinlock: Support Clang's context analysis

[Bart Van Assche]

On 12/19/25 2:02 PM, Marco Elver wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Dec 2025 at 21:26, Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On 12/19/25 7:39 AM, Marco Elver wrote:
> > > - extern void do_raw_read_lock(rwlock_t *lock) __acquires(lock);
> > > + extern void do_raw_read_lock(rwlock_t *lock) __acquires_shared(lock);
> >
> > Given the "one change per patch" rule, shouldn't the annotation fixes
> > for rwlock operations be moved into a separate patch?
> >
> > > -typedef struct {
> > > +context_lock_struct(rwlock) {
> > >        arch_rwlock_t raw_lock;
> > >    #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_SPINLOCK
> > >        unsigned int magic, owner_cpu;
> > > @@ -31,7 +31,8 @@ typedef struct {
> > >    #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC
> > >        struct lockdep_map dep_map;
> > >    #endif
> > > -} rwlock_t;
> > > +};
> > > +typedef struct rwlock rwlock_t;
> >
> > This change introduces a new globally visible "struct rwlock". Although
> > I haven't found any existing "struct rwlock" definitions, maybe it's a
> > good idea to use a more unique name instead.
>
> This doesn't actually introduce a new globally visible "struct
> rwlock", it's already the case before.
> An inlined struct definition in a typedef is available by its struct
> name, so this is not introducing a new name
> (https://godbolt.org/z/Y1jf66e1M).

Please take another look. The godbolt example follows the pattern
"typedef struct name { ... } name_t;". The "name" part is missing from
the rwlock_t definition. This is why I wrote that the above code
introduces a new global struct name.

Bart.