On Sat, Dec 09, 2017 at 10:22:14AM -0800, Florian Fainelli wrote: > > > On 12/08/2017 07:48 AM, Russell King wrote: > > Add unlocked versions of the bus accessors, which allows access to the > > bus with all the tracing. These accessors validate that the bus mutex > > is held, which is a basic requirement for all mii bus accesses. > > > > Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+ker...@armlinux.org.uk> > > Reviewed-by: Florian Fainelli <f.faine...@gmail.com> > > > --- > > include/linux/phy.h | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/include/linux/phy.h b/include/linux/phy.h > > index 71d777fe6c3d..964803bd7324 100644 > > --- a/include/linux/phy.h > > +++ b/include/linux/phy.h > > @@ -716,6 +716,18 @@ static inline int phy_read(struct phy_device *phydev, > > u32 regnum) > > } > > > > /** > > + * __phy_read - convenience function for reading a given PHY register > > + * @phydev: the phy_device struct > > + * @regnum: register number to read > > + * > > + * The caller must have taken the MDIO bus lock. > > + */ > > +static inline int __phy_read(struct phy_device *phydev, u32 regnum) > > Do you know if we could have sparse validate that the caller of these > functions holds the mutex? I remember reading somewhere that sparse does > not do that yet, but can't get my hands on it.
Hi Florian, I tried adding __acquires() and __releases() annotations, but sparse complained about unbalanced lock counts when I did, because sparse has no knowledge about mutexes being taken or released. Unfortunately, it seems that these annotations are undocumented in the kernel, but from what I can see, it turns out that they only apply to spinlocks. -- RMK's Patch system: http://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/ FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line in suburbia: sync at 8.8Mbps down 630kbps up According to speedtest.net: 8.21Mbps down 510kbps up
