Linux-Sparse Archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Uwe Kleine-König" <u.kleine-koenig@baylibre.com>
To: linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org
Subject: sparse reports "different lock contexts for basic block" when using guard syntax
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2024 10:25:53 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <xc3xx56vvesaen7r2c3q5thmrjva7zcfq5habasejlyn7vnpbj@jxsfprt5gfa4> (raw)

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1826 bytes --]

Hello,

on Linux v6.13-rc1 I get:

	$ armmake C=1 drivers/pwm/pwm-gpio.o
	...
	  CC [M]  drivers/pwm/pwm-gpio.o
	  CHECK   /home/uwe/gsrc/linux/drivers/pwm/pwm-gpio.c
	drivers/pwm/pwm-gpio.c:98:9: warning: context imbalance in 'pwm_gpio_timer' - wrong count at exit
	drivers/pwm/pwm-gpio.c:101:12: warning: context imbalance in 'pwm_gpio_apply' - different lock contexts for basic block
	drivers/pwm/pwm-gpio.c:166:9: warning: context imbalance in 'pwm_gpio_get_state' - wrong count at exit

with

	$ sparse --version
	0.6.4 (Debian: 0.6.4-4+b1)

but also on sparse/main.

Trying to understand what sparse wants to tell me, I tried the following
change and the 2nd warning goes away:

diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-gpio.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-gpio.c
index 9f8884ac7504..d811b1f71c92 100644
--- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-gpio.c
+++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-gpio.c
@@ -103,6 +103,7 @@ static int pwm_gpio_apply(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
 {
 	struct pwm_gpio *gpwm = pwmchip_get_drvdata(chip);
 	bool invert = state->polarity == PWM_POLARITY_INVERSED;
+	unsigned long flags;
 
 	if (state->duty_cycle && state->duty_cycle < hrtimer_resolution)
 		return -EINVAL;
@@ -125,7 +126,7 @@ static int pwm_gpio_apply(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
 			return ret;
 	}
 
-	guard(spinlock_irqsave)(&gpwm->lock);
+	spin_lock_irqsave(&gpwm->lock, flags);
 
 	if (!state->enabled) {
 		pwm_gpio_round(&gpwm->state, state);
@@ -148,6 +149,7 @@ static int pwm_gpio_apply(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
 				      HRTIMER_MODE_REL);
 	}
 
+	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&gpwm->lock, flags);
 	return 0;
 }
 

But unless I'm mistaken the new code in pwm-gpio.c is equivalent, so
maybe sparse doesn't understand the guard syntax?

Any hints?

Best regards
Uwe

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

             reply	other threads:[~2024-12-02  9:25 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-12-02  9:25 Uwe Kleine-König [this message]
2024-12-02 21:06 ` sparse reports "different lock contexts for basic block" when using guard syntax Linus Torvalds

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=xc3xx56vvesaen7r2c3q5thmrjva7zcfq5habasejlyn7vnpbj@jxsfprt5gfa4 \
    --to=u.kleine-koenig@baylibre.com \
    --cc=linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).