Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 27 Sep 2016 12:59:05 +0200 | From | Peter Zijlstra <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] kcov: properly check if we are in an interrupt |
| |
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 09:50:41AM +0200, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: > On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 9:34 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 08:21:32AM +0200, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: > >> > >> I suspect there is a bunch of places that use in_interrupt(), but mean > >> the same as KCOV wants -- am I in interrupt? and not am I in interrupt > >> context or in normal task context but inside local_bh_disable(). For > >> example, why does fput handles closure asynchronously if the task > >> called local_bh_disable? > > > > Agreed, but it would mean auditing all in_interrupt()/irq_count() users. > > > I don't think this means auditing all users. We are not making things > worse by introduction of a new predicate. > It would be nice to look at some uses in core code, but the only place > with observed harm is KCOV. > > Any naming suggestions? Other than really_in_interrupt or > in_interrupt_and_not_in_bh_disabled?
Hence the suggestion to audit and fix instead of making a bigger mess :/
| |