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:   Fri, 26 Feb 2021 09:40:32 -0500
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
To:     Xu Wang <vulab@iscas.ac.cn>
Cc:     mingo@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tracing: Use WARN(1,...)
Message-ID: <20210226094032.49ac56d7@gandalf.local.home>
In-Reply-To: <20210226094426.49016-1-vulab@iscas.ac.cn>
References: <20210226094426.49016-1-vulab@iscas.ac.cn>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 26 Feb 2021 09:44:26 +0000
Xu Wang <vulab@iscas.ac.cn> wrote:

> Use WARN(1,...) rather than printk followed by WARN_ON(1).

Why?

> 
> Signed-off-by: Xu Wang <vulab@iscas.ac.cn>
> ---
>  kernel/trace/trace.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/trace/trace.c b/kernel/trace/trace.c
> index 526fd5ac2ba8..a556b8c00a9f 100644
> --- a/kernel/trace/trace.c
> +++ b/kernel/trace/trace.c
> @@ -1957,7 +1957,7 @@ static int run_tracer_selftest(struct tracer *type)
>  	tr->current_trace = saved_tracer;
>  	if (ret) {
>  		/* Add the warning after printing 'FAILED' */
> -		WARN(1, KERN_CONT "FAILED!\n");
> +		WARN(1, "FAILED!\n");

The above isn't even in my tree.

Anyway, look at the code around it, and then tell that this patch makes
sense.

NAK.

-- Steve


>  		return -1;
>  	}
>  	/* Only reset on passing, to avoid touching corrupted buffers */