[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230214182831.7l73rzoeqjowbyly@treble>
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2023 10:28:31 -0800
From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>
To: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@...aro.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jgross@...e.com,
richard.henderson@...aro.org, ink@...assic.park.msu.ru,
mattst88@...il.com, linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org,
linux@...linux.org.uk, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
catalin.marinas@....com, will@...nel.org, guoren@...nel.org,
linux-csky@...r.kernel.org, linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org,
chenhuacai@...nel.org, kernel@...0n.name,
loongarch@...ts.linux.dev, f.fainelli@...il.com,
bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com, tsbogend@...ha.franken.de,
linux-mips@...r.kernel.org, jiaxun.yang@...goat.com,
mpe@...erman.id.au, npiggin@...il.com, christophe.leroy@...roup.eu,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, ysato@...rs.sourceforge.jp,
dalias@...c.org, linux-sh@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net,
sparclinux@...r.kernel.org, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com,
bp@...en8.de, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, x86@...nel.org,
hpa@...or.com, chris@...kel.net, jcmvbkbc@...il.com,
linux-xtensa@...ux-xtensa.org, peterz@...radead.org,
juri.lelli@...hat.com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
dietmar.eggemann@....com, rostedt@...dmis.org, bsegall@...gle.com,
mgorman@...e.de, bristot@...hat.com, vschneid@...hat.com,
paulmck@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 13/24] sh/cpu: Make sure play_dead() doesn't return
On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 08:57:39AM +0100, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> On 14/2/23 08:05, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > play_dead() doesn't return. Make that more explicit with a BUG().
> >
> > BUG() is preferable to unreachable() because BUG() is a more explicit
> > failure mode and avoids undefined behavior like falling off the edge of
> > the function into whatever code happens to be next.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>
> > ---
> > arch/sh/include/asm/smp-ops.h | 1 +
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/sh/include/asm/smp-ops.h b/arch/sh/include/asm/smp-ops.h
> > index e27702130eb6..63866b1595a0 100644
> > --- a/arch/sh/include/asm/smp-ops.h
> > +++ b/arch/sh/include/asm/smp-ops.h
> > @@ -27,6 +27,7 @@ static inline void plat_smp_setup(void)
> > static inline void play_dead(void)
> > {
> > mp_ops->play_dead();
> > + BUG();
> > }
>
> Shouldn't we decorate plat_smp_ops::play_dead() as noreturn first?
I guess it really depends on how far we want to go down the __noreturn
rabbit hole. To keep the patch set constrained yet still useful I
stopped when I got to a function pointer, as I think it still needs a
BUG() afterwards either way.
That said, there would still be benefits of adding __noreturn to
function pointers, I just wanted to keep the patch set down to a
manageable size ;-)
--
Josh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists