Hello,
On Tue, 2020-11-17 at 17:58 +0100, Luc Van Oostenryck wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 09:38:45AM +0100, Paolo Abeni wrote:
> > 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_fa
On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 09:38:45AM +0100, Paolo Abeni wrote:
> 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 s
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) {
> >
On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 11:36:39AM +0100, Paolo Abeni wrote:
> The static checker is fooled by the non-static locking scheme
> implemented by the mentioned helpers.
> Let's make its life easier adding some unconditional annotation
> so that the helpers are now interpreted as a plain spinlock from
>
The static checker is fooled by the non-static locking scheme
implemented by the mentioned helpers.
Let's make its life easier adding some unconditional annotation
so that the helpers are now interpreted as a plain spinlock from
sparse.
Signed-off-by: Paolo Abeni
---
include/net/sock.h | 9 +
