Hi, On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 10:22:32AM +0530, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 6:25 AM James Coleman <jtc...@gmail.com> wrote: > > This is potentially a bit of a wild idea, but I wonder if having some > > kind of argument to CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() signifying we're in > > "normal" as opposed to "critical" (using that word differently than > > the existing critical sections) would be worth it. > > It's worth considering, but the definition of "normal" vs. "critical" > might be hard to pin down. Or, we might end up with a definition that > is specific to this particular case and not generalizable to others.
But it doesn't have to be all or nothing right? I mean each call could say what the situation is like in their context, like CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(GUARANTEE_NO_HEAVYWEIGHT_LOCK | GUARANTEE_WHATEVER), and slowly tag calls as needed, similarly to how we add already CFI based on users report.
