From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: linux@roeck-us.net (Guenter Roeck)
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2014 08:38:36 -0700
Subject: [PATCH 01/44] kernel: Add support for poweroff handler call chain
In-Reply-To: <20141009103143.GA6787@amd>
References: <1412659726-29957-1-git-send-email-linux@roeck-us.net>
 <1412659726-29957-2-git-send-email-linux@roeck-us.net>
 <20141009103143.GA6787@amd>
Message-ID: <20141009153836.GA31987@roeck-us.net>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 12:31:43PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> > +/**
> > + *	register_poweroff_handler_simple - Register function to be called to power off
> > + *					   the system
> > + *	@handler:	Function to be called to power off the system
> > + *	@priority:	Handler priority. For priority guidelines see
> > + *			register_poweroff_handler.
> > + *
> > + *	This is a simplified version of register_poweroff_handler. It does not
> > + *	take a notifier as argument, but a function pointer. The function
> > + *	registers a poweroff handler with specified priority. Poweroff
> > + *	handlers registered with this function can not be unregistered,
> > + *	and only a single poweroff handler can be installed using it.
> > + *
> > + *	This function must not be called from modules and is therefore
> > + *	not exported.
> > + *
> > + *	Returns -EBUSY if a poweroff handler has already been registered
> > + *	using register_poweroff_handler_simple. Otherwise returns zero,
> > + *	since atomic_notifier_chain_register() currently always returns zero.
> > + */
> > +int register_poweroff_handler_simple(void (*handler)(void), int priority)
> > +{
> > +	char symname[KSYM_NAME_LEN];
> > +
> > +	if (poweroff_handler_data.handler) {
> > +		lookup_symbol_name((unsigned long)poweroff_handler_data.handler,
> > +				   symname);
> > +		pr_warn("Poweroff function already registered (%s)", symname);
> > +		lookup_symbol_name((unsigned long)handler, symname);
> > +		pr_cont(", cannot register %s\n", symname);
> > +		return -EBUSY;
> > +	}
> 
> Dunno, are you maybe overdoing the debugging infrastructure a bit?
> This is not going to happen in production, and if it does happen,
> developer can look the symbol name himself.

On the other side, I don't think it hurts to have that message.
Anyway, I'll use %ps as suggested by Geert.

Guenter