lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Jul]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v4] cpu/hotplug: Do not bail-out in DYING/STARTING sections
Date
On 19/07/22 16:48, Vincent Donnefort wrote:
> 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.

Right

> But if we drop the latter, that would simplify the problem of
> knowing which error code to return.
>

We need to drop one of the two, the pr_warn() will probably be more useful
if/when we need to debug this, so go for it.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-07-22 20:38    [W:0.038 / U:0.104 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site