[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <f72d43b9-88a1-19f0-c6ca-87fd7a01f379@csgroup.eu>
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2021 14:57:59 +0200
From: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>
To: Jason Wang <wangborong@...rlc.com>, jk@...abs.org
Cc: arnd@...db.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, paulus@...ba.org,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: Use WARN_ON
Le 01/07/2021 à 14:50, Jason Wang a écrit :
> The BUG_ON macro simplifies the if condition followed by BUG, but it
> will lead to the kernel crashing. Therefore, we can try using WARN_ON
> instead of if condition followed by BUG.
But are you sure it is ok to continue if spu_acquire(ctx) returned false ?
Shouldn't there be at least for fallback handling ?
Something like:
if (WARN_ON(spu_acquire(ctx)))
return;
Christophe
>
> Signed-off-by: Jason Wang <wangborong@...rlc.com>
> ---
> arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/spufs/sched.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/spufs/sched.c b/arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/spufs/sched.c
> index 369206489895..0f218d9e5733 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/spufs/sched.c
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/spufs/sched.c
> @@ -904,8 +904,8 @@ static noinline void spusched_tick(struct spu_context *ctx)
> struct spu_context *new = NULL;
> struct spu *spu = NULL;
>
> - if (spu_acquire(ctx))
> - BUG(); /* a kernel thread never has signals pending */
> + /* a kernel thread never has signals pending */
> + WARN_ON(spu_acquire(ctx));
>
> if (ctx->state != SPU_STATE_RUNNABLE)
> goto out;
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists