On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 9:34 AM Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 12:22 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
> <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com> wrote:
> > At Tue, 26 Jan 2021 11:00:56 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi> wrote in
> > > Don't we potentially have the same problem with all on_dsm_detach
> > > callbacks? Looking at the other on_dsm_detach callbacks, I don't see
> > > any CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPT() calls in them, but it seems fragile to
> > > assume that.
> > >
> > > I'd suggest adding HOLD/RESUME_INTERRUPTS() to dsm_detach(). At least
> > > around the removal of the callback from the list and calling the
> > > callback. Maybe even over the whole function.
> >
> > Yes, I first came up with HOLD/RESUME_QUERY_INTERRUPTS() to the same
> > location.
>
> +1, this seems like a good idea. This is a little bit like the code
> near the comments "Don't joggle the elbow of proc_exit".
So that gives a very simple back-patchable patch.