Mark function to be used only under lock












0















I'm writing a linux kernel driver and I have a function which MUST be called under lock, and I want to make sure no one will use it without acquiring the lock.
This function is called many times from different functions which acquire the lock prior to calling the function.



I'm wondering if there is a way of telling the compiler to verify that all calls to that function are done under a lock?
something like function attributes or something similar.



thanks.










share|improve this question

























  • You don't say what language? Assuming c++, you could insist that one argument is a reference to the RAII object wrapping the lock. If caller don't have that RAII object they can't have locked? If the fn is deeply nested vs the locker, passing it round will be a pain. Another option is to put all the methods that need the lock in an internal class, and only by calling a lock method on the public class can you get back an RAII object which both releases the lock and exposes the inner interface. The public class can also have helper methods that hold the lock and call the inner method one-off.

    – Gem Taylor
    Nov 21 '18 at 23:31













  • sorry, it's for linux kernel driver, language is C.

    – Idan Emergi
    Nov 22 '18 at 9:18













  • No. There is none of my knowledge. I know the opposite, but it’s still for runtime, and not for compile time. Use comment block for that.

    – 0andriy
    Dec 1 '18 at 10:24


















0















I'm writing a linux kernel driver and I have a function which MUST be called under lock, and I want to make sure no one will use it without acquiring the lock.
This function is called many times from different functions which acquire the lock prior to calling the function.



I'm wondering if there is a way of telling the compiler to verify that all calls to that function are done under a lock?
something like function attributes or something similar.



thanks.










share|improve this question

























  • You don't say what language? Assuming c++, you could insist that one argument is a reference to the RAII object wrapping the lock. If caller don't have that RAII object they can't have locked? If the fn is deeply nested vs the locker, passing it round will be a pain. Another option is to put all the methods that need the lock in an internal class, and only by calling a lock method on the public class can you get back an RAII object which both releases the lock and exposes the inner interface. The public class can also have helper methods that hold the lock and call the inner method one-off.

    – Gem Taylor
    Nov 21 '18 at 23:31













  • sorry, it's for linux kernel driver, language is C.

    – Idan Emergi
    Nov 22 '18 at 9:18













  • No. There is none of my knowledge. I know the opposite, but it’s still for runtime, and not for compile time. Use comment block for that.

    – 0andriy
    Dec 1 '18 at 10:24
















0












0








0








I'm writing a linux kernel driver and I have a function which MUST be called under lock, and I want to make sure no one will use it without acquiring the lock.
This function is called many times from different functions which acquire the lock prior to calling the function.



I'm wondering if there is a way of telling the compiler to verify that all calls to that function are done under a lock?
something like function attributes or something similar.



thanks.










share|improve this question
















I'm writing a linux kernel driver and I have a function which MUST be called under lock, and I want to make sure no one will use it without acquiring the lock.
This function is called many times from different functions which acquire the lock prior to calling the function.



I'm wondering if there is a way of telling the compiler to verify that all calls to that function are done under a lock?
something like function attributes or something similar.



thanks.







linux linux-kernel locking spinlock function-attributes






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Nov 22 '18 at 9:17







Idan Emergi

















asked Nov 21 '18 at 20:15









Idan EmergiIdan Emergi

62




62













  • You don't say what language? Assuming c++, you could insist that one argument is a reference to the RAII object wrapping the lock. If caller don't have that RAII object they can't have locked? If the fn is deeply nested vs the locker, passing it round will be a pain. Another option is to put all the methods that need the lock in an internal class, and only by calling a lock method on the public class can you get back an RAII object which both releases the lock and exposes the inner interface. The public class can also have helper methods that hold the lock and call the inner method one-off.

    – Gem Taylor
    Nov 21 '18 at 23:31













  • sorry, it's for linux kernel driver, language is C.

    – Idan Emergi
    Nov 22 '18 at 9:18













  • No. There is none of my knowledge. I know the opposite, but it’s still for runtime, and not for compile time. Use comment block for that.

    – 0andriy
    Dec 1 '18 at 10:24





















  • You don't say what language? Assuming c++, you could insist that one argument is a reference to the RAII object wrapping the lock. If caller don't have that RAII object they can't have locked? If the fn is deeply nested vs the locker, passing it round will be a pain. Another option is to put all the methods that need the lock in an internal class, and only by calling a lock method on the public class can you get back an RAII object which both releases the lock and exposes the inner interface. The public class can also have helper methods that hold the lock and call the inner method one-off.

    – Gem Taylor
    Nov 21 '18 at 23:31













  • sorry, it's for linux kernel driver, language is C.

    – Idan Emergi
    Nov 22 '18 at 9:18













  • No. There is none of my knowledge. I know the opposite, but it’s still for runtime, and not for compile time. Use comment block for that.

    – 0andriy
    Dec 1 '18 at 10:24



















You don't say what language? Assuming c++, you could insist that one argument is a reference to the RAII object wrapping the lock. If caller don't have that RAII object they can't have locked? If the fn is deeply nested vs the locker, passing it round will be a pain. Another option is to put all the methods that need the lock in an internal class, and only by calling a lock method on the public class can you get back an RAII object which both releases the lock and exposes the inner interface. The public class can also have helper methods that hold the lock and call the inner method one-off.

– Gem Taylor
Nov 21 '18 at 23:31







You don't say what language? Assuming c++, you could insist that one argument is a reference to the RAII object wrapping the lock. If caller don't have that RAII object they can't have locked? If the fn is deeply nested vs the locker, passing it round will be a pain. Another option is to put all the methods that need the lock in an internal class, and only by calling a lock method on the public class can you get back an RAII object which both releases the lock and exposes the inner interface. The public class can also have helper methods that hold the lock and call the inner method one-off.

– Gem Taylor
Nov 21 '18 at 23:31















sorry, it's for linux kernel driver, language is C.

– Idan Emergi
Nov 22 '18 at 9:18







sorry, it's for linux kernel driver, language is C.

– Idan Emergi
Nov 22 '18 at 9:18















No. There is none of my knowledge. I know the opposite, but it’s still for runtime, and not for compile time. Use comment block for that.

– 0andriy
Dec 1 '18 at 10:24







No. There is none of my knowledge. I know the opposite, but it’s still for runtime, and not for compile time. Use comment block for that.

– 0andriy
Dec 1 '18 at 10:24














0






active

oldest

votes












Your Answer






StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
StackExchange.snippets.init();
});
});
}, "code-snippets");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53419851%2fmark-function-to-be-used-only-under-lock%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























0






active

oldest

votes








0






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes
















draft saved

draft discarded




















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53419851%2fmark-function-to-be-used-only-under-lock%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

鏡平學校

ꓛꓣだゔៀៅຸ໢ທຮ໕໒ ,ໂ'໥໓າ໼ឨឲ៵៭ៈゎゔit''䖳𥁄卿' ☨₤₨こゎもょの;ꜹꟚꞖꞵꟅꞛေၦေɯ,ɨɡ𛃵𛁹ޝ޳ޠ޾,ޤޒޯ޾𫝒𫠁သ𛅤チョ'サノބޘދ𛁐ᶿᶇᶀᶋᶠ㨑㽹⻮ꧬ꧹؍۩وَؠ㇕㇃㇪ ㇦㇋㇋ṜẰᵡᴠ 軌ᵕ搜۳ٰޗޮ޷ސޯ𫖾𫅀ल, ꙭ꙰ꚅꙁꚊꞻꝔ꟠Ꝭㄤﺟޱސꧨꧼ꧴ꧯꧽ꧲ꧯ'⽹⽭⾁⿞⼳⽋២៩ញណើꩯꩤ꩸ꩮᶻᶺᶧᶂ𫳲𫪭𬸄𫵰𬖩𬫣𬊉ၲ𛅬㕦䬺𫝌𫝼,,𫟖𫞽ហៅ஫㆔ాఆఅꙒꚞꙍ,Ꙟ꙱エ ,ポテ,フࢰࢯ𫟠𫞶 𫝤𫟠ﺕﹱﻜﻣ𪵕𪭸𪻆𪾩𫔷ġ,ŧآꞪ꟥,ꞔꝻ♚☹⛵𛀌ꬷꭞȄƁƪƬșƦǙǗdžƝǯǧⱦⱰꓕꓢႋ神 ဴ၀க௭எ௫ឫោ ' េㇷㇴㇼ神ㇸㇲㇽㇴㇼㇻㇸ'ㇸㇿㇸㇹㇰㆣꓚꓤ₡₧ ㄨㄟ㄂ㄖㄎ໗ツڒذ₶।ऩछएोञयूटक़कयँृी,冬'𛅢𛅥ㇱㇵㇶ𥄥𦒽𠣧𠊓𧢖𥞘𩔋цѰㄠſtʯʭɿʆʗʍʩɷɛ,əʏダヵㄐㄘR{gỚṖḺờṠṫảḙḭᴮᵏᴘᵀᵷᵕᴜᴏᵾq﮲ﲿﴽﭙ軌ﰬﶚﶧ﫲Ҝжюїкӈㇴffצּ﬘﭅﬈軌'ffistfflſtffतभफɳɰʊɲʎ𛁱𛁖𛁮𛀉 𛂯𛀞నఋŀŲ 𫟲𫠖𫞺ຆຆ ໹້໕໗ๆทԊꧢꧠ꧰ꓱ⿝⼑ŎḬẃẖỐẅ ,ờỰỈỗﮊDžȩꭏꭎꬻ꭮ꬿꭖꭥꭅ㇭神 ⾈ꓵꓑ⺄㄄ㄪㄙㄅㄇstA۵䞽ॶ𫞑𫝄㇉㇇゜軌𩜛𩳠Jﻺ‚Üမ႕ႌႊၐၸဓၞၞၡ៸wyvtᶎᶪᶹစဎ꣡꣰꣢꣤ٗ؋لㇳㇾㇻㇱ㆐㆔,,㆟Ⱶヤマފ޼ޝަݿݞݠݷݐ',ݘ,ݪݙݵ𬝉𬜁𫝨𫞘くせぉて¼óû×ó£…𛅑הㄙくԗԀ5606神45,神796'𪤻𫞧ꓐ㄁ㄘɥɺꓵꓲ3''7034׉ⱦⱠˆ“𫝋ȍ,ꩲ軌꩷ꩶꩧꩫఞ۔فڱێظペサ神ナᴦᵑ47 9238їﻂ䐊䔉㠸﬎ffiﬣ,לּᴷᴦᵛᵽ,ᴨᵤ ᵸᵥᴗᵈꚏꚉꚟ⻆rtǟƴ𬎎

Why https connections are so slow when debugging (stepping over) in Java?