* Roland Dreier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And actually the lock stuff is OK, since it's not inlined -- it's the
> unlock stuff that goes directly to the __raw versions. But something
> like the following works for me; does it look OK to you?
yeah, it looks good to me too. Hopefully this wi
> i think the right way to fix it might be to define a _spin_unlock()
> within those #ifdef branches, and then to define spin_lock as:
>
> static inline void spin_lock(spinlock_t *lock) __acquires(lock)
I tried a similar approach, but what got me was that sparse doesn't
pay attention to the
* Roland Dreier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (Ingo -- you seem to be the last person to touch all this stuff, and I
> can't untangle what you did, hence I'm sending this email to you)
>
> On at least some of my configs on x86_64, when running sparse, I see
> bogus 'warning: context imbalance i
(Ingo -- you seem to be the last person to touch all this stuff, and I
can't untangle what you did, hence I'm sending this email to you)
On at least some of my configs on x86_64, when running sparse, I see
bogus 'warning: context imbalance in '' - wrong count at exit'.
This seems to be because I
4 matches
Mail list logo
