On 9/21/20 8:31 PM, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 10:29 AM Andrii Nakryiko
wrote:
On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 12:46 AM Muchun Song wrote:
The in_atomic macro cannot always detect atomic context. In particular,
it cannot know about held spinlocks in non-preemptible kernels. Alth
On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 10:29 AM Andrii Nakryiko
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 12:46 AM Muchun Song wrote:
> >
> > The in_atomic macro cannot always detect atomic context. In particular,
> > it cannot know about held spinlocks in non-preemptible kernels. Although,
> > there is no user call b
On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 12:46 AM Muchun Song wrote:
>
> The in_atomic macro cannot always detect atomic context. In particular,
> it cannot know about held spinlocks in non-preemptible kernels. Although,
> there is no user call bpf_link_put() with holding spinlock now. Be the
> safe side, we can a
On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 6:37 AM Song Liu wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 12:46 AM Muchun Song wrote:
> >
> > The in_atomic macro cannot always detect atomic context. In particular,
> > it cannot know about held spinlocks in non-preemptible kernels. Although,
> > there is no user call bpf_link_
On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 12:46 AM Muchun Song wrote:
>
> The in_atomic macro cannot always detect atomic context. In particular,
> it cannot know about held spinlocks in non-preemptible kernels. Although,
> there is no user call bpf_link_put() with holding spinlock now. Be the
> safe side, we can a
The in_atomic macro cannot always detect atomic context. In particular,
it cannot know about held spinlocks in non-preemptible kernels. Although,
there is no user call bpf_link_put() with holding spinlock now. Be the
safe side, we can avoid this in the feature.
Signed-off-by: Muchun Song
---
ker
