On 12/19/25 2:02 PM, Marco Elver wrote:
On Fri, 19 Dec 2025 at 21:26, Bart Van Assche <[email protected]> wrote:
On 12/19/25 7:39 AM, Marco Elver wrote:
- extern void do_raw_read_lock(rwlock_t *lock) __acquires(lock);
+ extern void do_raw_read_lock(rwlock_t *lock) __acquires_shared(lock);
Given the "one change per patch" rule, shouldn't the annotation fixes
for rwlock operations be moved into a separate patch?
-typedef struct {
+context_lock_struct(rwlock) {
arch_rwlock_t raw_lock;
#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_SPINLOCK
unsigned int magic, owner_cpu;
@@ -31,7 +31,8 @@ typedef struct {
#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC
struct lockdep_map dep_map;
#endif
-} rwlock_t;
+};
+typedef struct rwlock rwlock_t;
This change introduces a new globally visible "struct rwlock". Although
I haven't found any existing "struct rwlock" definitions, maybe it's a
good idea to use a more unique name instead.
This doesn't actually introduce a new globally visible "struct
rwlock", it's already the case before.
An inlined struct definition in a typedef is available by its struct
name, so this is not introducing a new name
(https://godbolt.org/z/Y1jf66e1M).
Please take another look. The godbolt example follows the pattern
"typedef struct name { ... } name_t;". The "name" part is missing from
the rwlock_t definition. This is why I wrote that the above code
introduces a new global struct name.
Bart.
