[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <50860711.10807@cn.fujitsu.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 10:55:13 +0800
From: Tang Chen <tangchen@...fujitsu.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...64.org>,
tony.luck@...el.com, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com,
hpa@...or.com, miaox@...fujitsu.com, laijs@...fujitsu.com,
wency@...fujitsu.com, x86@...nel.org, linux-edac@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] Replace if statement with WARN_ON_ONCE() in cmci_rediscover().
On 10/22/2012 06:14 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 10:10:24AM +0800, Tang Chen wrote:
>> I don't why before we just jumped over it. But I think if we have an
>> online cpu == dying here, it must be wrong. So I think we should warn
>> it, not just jump over it.
>
> Why do we need to warn? What good would that bring us?
>
> AFAICT, the check in cmci_rediscover is there to make sure we absolutely
> don't rediscover on the dying cpu. I think it is a safety precaution in
> concurrency scenarios between cpu hotplug and mce code.
Well, I see. I dropped the if statement. :)
So, how about warn once, and continue:
if (cpu == dying) {
WARN_ON_ONCE(cpu == dying);
continue;
}
or, use BUG_ON() instead ?
>
> Thanks.
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists