From:   "Fabio M. De Francesco" <fmdefrancesco@gmail.com>
To:     Marco Elver <elver@google.com>
Cc:     gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, jirislaby@kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, syzkaller-bugs@googlegroups.com,
        syzbot <syzbot+5f47a8cea6a12b77a876@syzkaller.appspotmail.com>
Subject: Re: [syzbot] BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context in __might_resched
Date:   Fri, 12 Nov 2021 18:15:44 +0100
Message-ID: <4117061.qmFDOAJpEW@localhost.localdomain>
In-Reply-To: <YY6WB9wMx/0VaqDx@elver.google.com>
References: <000000000000f43bb905d06c8b7f@google.com> <1805242.PYQNYDVmnG@localhost.localdomain> <YY6WB9wMx/0VaqDx@elver.google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Precedence: bulk

On Friday, November 12, 2021 5:27:51 PM CET Marco Elver wrote:

> My guess is that in this case '!preemptible()' could work:
> 
> 	#define preemptible()	(preempt_count() == 0 && !
irqs_disabled())
> 
> But still am not entirely sure.
> 
> Thanks,
> -- Marco

Oh, I didn't even know that we have that preemptible() macro. 

Instead, I should have known that in_atomic() won't do, since last week I had 
copy-pasted in an email that I sent to someone on the LKML exactly the same 
inline documentation that you have showed now.

Thanks, Marco. At least, this thread was useful to make me recall how these 
macros should be used :)

Regards,

Fabio