Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Wed, 20 Jan 2021 18:30:45 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Vincent Donnefort <vincent.donnefort@arm.com>
Cc:     tglx@linutronix.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        valentin.schneider@arm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] cpu/hotplug: CPUHP_BRINGUP_CPU exception in fail
 injection
Message-ID: <YAhoxQxFmcEH3Pin@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <1610385047-92151-1-git-send-email-vincent.donnefort@arm.com>
 <1610385047-92151-3-git-send-email-vincent.donnefort@arm.com>
 <YAgo+zMrbFjJ/meF@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20210120151723.GA284273@e120877-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20210120151723.GA284273@e120877-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 03:17:24PM +0000, Vincent Donnefort wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 01:58:35PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 05:10:45PM +0000, vincent.donnefort@arm.com wrote:

> > > +	if (cpuhp_is_atomic_state(fail) ||
> > > +	    (fail == CPUHP_BRINGUP_CPU && st->state > CPUHP_BRINGUP_CPU))
> > >  		return -EINVAL;
> > 
> > Should we instead disallow failing any state that has .cant_stop ?
> 
> We would reduce the scope of what can be tested: bringup_cpu() and
> takedown_cpu() are both marked as "cant_stop". Still, those callbacks are
> allowed to fail.

Fair enough. I suppose we can add an additional cant_fail field, but I'm
not sure that's worth the effort over this.