[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <xhsmhfsix6ssc.mognet@vschneid.remote.csb>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2022 16:12:03 +0100
From: Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>
To: Vincent Donnefort <vdonnefort@...gle.com>, peterz@...radead.org,
tglx@...utronix.de
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, regressions@...mhuis.info,
kernel-team@...roid.com, Vincent Donnefort <vdonnefort@...gle.com>,
Derek Dolney <z23@...teo.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] cpu/hotplug: Do not bail-out in DYING/STARTING sections
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?
Also, why not have ret = err here?
> + } 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));
> }
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists