From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <stable-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail.skyhub.de ([78.46.96.112]:59739 "EHLO mail.skyhub.de"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1755315AbcEXJgg (ORCPT <rfc822;stable@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 24 May 2016 05:36:36 -0400
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 11:36:29 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>, x86@kernel.org,
	Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>, lkml@vger.kernel.org,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>, stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/traps: Don't for in_interrupt() to return true in
 IST handlers
Message-ID: <20160524093629.GA2388@pd.tnic>
References: <ce1cd1d47b486c142d57a9a8189470a1c3809a9c.1464062136.git.luto@kernel.org>
 <20160524085945.GE3192@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20160524085945.GE3192@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Sender: stable-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <stable.vger.kernel.org>

On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 10:59:45AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Which use a sequence of: in_nmi(), in_irq(), in_softirq() to pick 1 out
> of 4 possible contexts.

So should we make it cleaner and explicit and define a 5th context of
priorities higher than NMI?

There's some room between those two:

 *             NMI_MASK:        0x00100000
 * PREEMPT_NEED_RESCHED:        0x80000000

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.