From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
Linux PM <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
kernel test robot <oliver.sang@intel.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 2/3] cpufreq: Panic if policy is active in cpufreq_policy_free()
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2022 17:34:09 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0hnjeTYDfGvwrAEY8hNa6bfD6MDGEiuTOgVV+g6LEaGLQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220706152333.fvgybznz3j6ffmre@vireshk-i7>
On Wed, Jul 6, 2022 at 5:23 PM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On 06-07-22, 15:49, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > WARN_ON() would be somewhat better, but then I'm not sure if having a
> > full call trace in this case is really useful, because we know when
> > cpufreq_policy_free() can be called anyway.
> >
> > Maybe just print a warning message.
>
> The warning will get printed, yes, but I am sure everyone will end up
> ignoring it, once it happens.
>
> One of the benefits of printing the call-stack is people will take it
> seriously and report it, and we won't miss a bug, if one gets in
> somehow.
I'd rather not go into discussing things that people may or may not do and why.
My point is that if WARN_ON() gets converted to panic(), they will not
see the message at all and if the message gets printed, they will have
a chance to see it even in that case. Whether or not they use that
chance as desirable is beyond the scope of engineering IMV.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-07-06 15:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-05-26 11:51 [PATCH 0/3] cpufreq: Minor cleanups Viresh Kumar
2022-05-26 11:51 ` [PATCH 1/3] cpufreq: Optimize cpufreq_show_cpus() Viresh Kumar
2022-05-26 11:51 ` [PATCH 2/3] cpufreq: Panic if policy is active in cpufreq_policy_free() Viresh Kumar
2022-05-27 3:13 ` [cpufreq] a6cb305191: kernel_BUG_at_drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c kernel test robot
2022-05-27 3:13 ` kernel test robot
2022-05-27 3:54 ` Viresh Kumar
2022-05-27 3:54 ` Viresh Kumar
2022-05-27 3:53 ` [PATCH V2 2/3] cpufreq: Panic if policy is active in cpufreq_policy_free() Viresh Kumar
2022-06-14 13:59 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2022-06-15 4:59 ` Viresh Kumar
2022-07-06 13:49 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2022-07-06 15:23 ` Viresh Kumar
2022-07-06 15:34 ` Rafael J. Wysocki [this message]
2022-05-26 11:51 ` [PATCH 3/3] cpufreq: Drop unnecessary cpus locking from store() Viresh Kumar
2022-06-14 13:51 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
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=CAJZ5v0hnjeTYDfGvwrAEY8hNa6bfD6MDGEiuTOgVV+g6LEaGLQ@mail.gmail.com \
--to=rafael@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=oliver.sang@intel.com \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=viresh.kumar@linaro.org \
/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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.