lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Mar]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH 3/8] tcp: Add missing annotation for tcp_child_process()
Thanks for the feedbacks. Good to know I have not used lockdep but I will 
try it.

On Tue, 10 Mar 2020, Eric Dumazet wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 6:09 PM Jules Irenge <jbi.octave@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Sparse reports warning at tcp_child_process()
> > warning: context imbalance in tcp_child_process() - unexpected unlock
> > The root cause is the missing annotation at tcp_child_process()
> >
> > Add the missing __releases(&((child)->sk_lock.slock)) annotation
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jules Irenge <jbi.octave@gmail.com>
> > ---
> > net/ipv4/tcp_minisocks.c | 1 +
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/net/ipv4/tcp_minisocks.c b/net/ipv4/tcp_minisocks.c
> > index ad3b56d9fa71..0e8a5b6e477c 100644
> > --- a/net/ipv4/tcp_minisocks.c
> > +++ b/net/ipv4/tcp_minisocks.c
> > @@ -817,6 +817,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(tcp_check_req);
> >
> > int tcp_child_process(struct sock *parent, struct sock *child,
> > struct sk_buff *skb)
> > + __releases(&((child)->sk_lock.slock))
> > {
> > int ret = 0;
> > int state = child->sk_state;
>
>
> Yeah, although we prefer to use lockdep these days ;)
>
> Reviewed-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-03-11 02:29    [W:0.053 / U:2.524 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site