On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 9:34 AM, Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]> 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?
