Hello,
Thank you for the feedback!
On Mon, 2020-11-16 at 23:27 +0100, Luc Van Oostenryck wrote:
> > @@ -1606,10 +1607,12 @@ bool lock_sock_fast(struct sock *sk);
> > */
> > static inline void unlock_sock_fast(struct sock *sk, bool slow)
> > {
> > - if (slow)
> > + if (slow) {
> > release_sock(sk);
> > - else
> > + __release(&sk->sk_lock.slock);
>
> The correct solution would be to annotate the declaration of
> release_sock() with '__releases(&sk->sk_lock.slock)'.
If I add such annotation to release_sock(), I'll get several sparse
warnings for context imbalance (on each lock_sock()/release_sock()
pair), unless I also add an '__acquires()' annotation to lock_sock().
The above does not look correct to me ?!? When release_sock() completes
the socket spin lock is not held. The annotation added above is
somewhat an artifact to let unlock_sock_fast() matches lock_sock_fast()
from sparse perspective. I intentionally avoided changing
the release_sock() annotation to avoid introducing more artifacts.
The proposed schema is not 100% accurate, as it will also allow e.g. a
really-not-fitting bh_lock_sock()/unlock_sock_fast() pair, but I could
not come-up with anything better.
Can we go with the schema I proposed?
Thanks,
Paolo
