[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230721122632.56b4df6c@gandalf.local.home>
Date:   Fri, 21 Jul 2023 12:26:32 -0400
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:     Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@...el.com>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "James E.J. Bottomley" <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>,
        Helge Deller <deller@....de>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        "Benjamin Herrenschmidt" <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
        Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
        Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, <x86@...nel.org>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        "Jiri Kosina" <jikos@...nel.org>, Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>,
        Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
        Joe Lawrence <joe.lawrence@...hat.com>,
        Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
        "Nicholas Piggin" <npiggin@...il.com>,
        Jisheng Zhang <jszhang@...nel.org>,
        <linux-csky@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>, <linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>,
        <live-patching@...r.kernel.org>,
        王贇 <yun.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>,
        Guo Ren <guoren@...nel.org>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tracing: Have all levels of checks prevent recursion
On Fri, 21 Jul 2023 18:06:07 +0200
Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@...el.com> wrote:
> > Just because you disable interrupts does not mean you are in interrupt
> > context.  
> 
> Ah okay, thanks! IOW, if we want to check in some code that we're
> certainly have interrupts enabled and are not in the interrupt context,
> we must always do
> 
> if (!(in_hardirq() || irqs_disabled()))
> 
Yeah, probably.
> , nothing more elegant / already existing / ...?
It's not a common check. What would you call that?
	irq_safe() ?
-- Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
 
