From: Vincent Donnefort <vdonnefort@google.com>
To: Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>
Cc: peterz@infradead.org, tglx@linutronix.de,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, regressions@leemhuis.info,
kernel-team@android.com, Derek Dolney <z23@posteo.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] cpu/hotplug: Do not bail-out in DYING/STARTING sections
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2022 16:48:15 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YtbSP21k1hTKGlqv@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <xhsmhfsix6ssc.mognet@vschneid.remote.csb>
On Tue, Jul 19, 2022 at 04:12:03PM +0100, Valentin Schneider wrote:
> On 04/07/22 14:13, Vincent Donnefort wrote:
> > +static int _cpuhp_invoke_callback_range(bool bringup,
> > + unsigned int cpu,
> > + struct cpuhp_cpu_state *st,
> > + enum cpuhp_state target,
> > + bool nofail)
> [...]
> > + if (nofail) {
> > + pr_warn("CPU %u %s state %s (%d) failed (%d)\n",
> > + cpu, bringup ? "UP" : "DOWN",
> > + cpuhp_get_step(st->state)->name,
> > + st->state, err);
> > + ret = -1;
>
> On a single failure we'll get two warns (WARN_ON_ONCE() + pr_warn(), and
> then subsequently just the pr_warn()), is that intended?
It does, this is to keep the backtrace that used to be here... but now, giving
a second thought, we can probably get rid of it and just keep the pr_warn()?
>
> Also, why not have ret = err here?
If two states fail, the ret wouldn't mean much, hence a default "-1" just for
the WARN_ONCE. But if we drop the latter, that would simplify the problem of
knowing which error code to return.
>
> > + } else {
> > + ret = err;
> > break;
> > + }
> > }
> >
> > - return err;
> > + return ret;
>
> > +static inline void cpuhp_invoke_callback_range_nofail(bool bringup,
> > + unsigned int cpu,
> > + struct cpuhp_cpu_state *st,
> > + enum cpuhp_state target)
> > +{
> > + WARN_ON_ONCE(_cpuhp_invoke_callback_range(bringup, cpu, st, target, true));
> > }
> >
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-07-19 15:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-07-04 13:13 [PATCH v4] cpu/hotplug: Do not bail-out in DYING/STARTING sections Vincent Donnefort
2022-07-19 15:12 ` Valentin Schneider
2022-07-19 15:48 ` Vincent Donnefort [this message]
2022-07-22 18:35 ` Valentin Schneider
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=YtbSP21k1hTKGlqv@google.com \
--to=vdonnefort@google.com \
--cc=kernel-team@android.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=regressions@leemhuis.info \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=vschneid@redhat.com \
--cc=z23@posteo.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).