Re: [PATCH v5 06/36] cleanup: Basic compatibility with context analysis
Bart Van Assche <[email protected]> Fri, 19 Dec 2025 11:16:13 -0800
| Newsgroups | org.kernel.vger.linux-sparse,dev.linux.lists.llvm,org.kernel.vger.linux-crypto,org.kernel.vger.linux-doc,org.kernel.vger.linux-kbuild,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel,org.kernel.vger.linux-security-module,org.kernel.vger.linux-wireless,org.kernel.vger.rcu,org.kvack.linux-mm |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 12/19/25 7:39 AM, Marco Elver wrote:
> +#define DECLARE_LOCK_GUARD_1_ATTRS(_name, _lock, _unlock) \
> +static inline class_##_name##_t class_##_name##_constructor(lock_##_name##_t *_T) _lock;\
> +static __always_inline void __class_##_name##_cleanup_ctx(class_##_name##_t **_T) \
> + __no_context_analysis _unlock { }
Elsewhere in the cleanup.h header arguments with the names "_lock" and
"_unlock" hold executable code that perform "lock" and "unlock"
operations respectively, e.g. mutex_lock() and mutex_unlock(). The
DECLARE_LOCK_GUARD_1_ATTRS() "_lock" and "_unlock" arguments however are
function annotations. Please prevent confusion and use other names for
the _lock and _unlock arguments, e.g. _acquire_attr and _release_attr.
Thanks,
Bart.