lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Jul]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v4] cpu/hotplug: Do not bail-out in DYING/STARTING sections
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));
> > }
> >
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-07-19 17:49    [W:0.072 / U:0.084 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site