Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To:     Chen Lifu <chenlifu@huawei.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next] irq: print depth in __enable_irq WARNING
In-Reply-To: <20220325013359.2691092-1-chenlifu@huawei.com>
References: <20220325013359.2691092-1-chenlifu@huawei.com>
Date:   Sun, 10 Apr 2022 21:40:24 +0200
Message-ID: <87czhohglz.ffs@tglx>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: bulk

Chen!

On Fri, Mar 25 2022 at 09:33, Chen Lifu wrote:

The subsystem prefix for the interrupt core is 'genirq' as you can easy
check via 'git log kernel/irq/manage.c'

> Since case 0 and 1 of desc->depth may print same warning messages as follows,
> according to the messages, we do not know in which case the warning is generated.
> This patch prints extra desc->depth in the warning messages to distinguish
> these cases.

This patch prints? The patch cannot print anything.

Please read the patch submission notes in Documentation/process/
including the tip tree specific rules in Documentation/process/maintainer-tip.html

>  void __enable_irq(struct irq_desc *desc)
>  {
>  	switch (desc->depth) {
>  	case 0:
>   err_out:
> -		WARN(1, KERN_WARNING "Unbalanced enable for IRQ %d\n",
> -		     irq_desc_get_irq(desc));
> +		WARN(1, KERN_WARNING "depth %u: Unbalanced enable for IRQ %d\n",
> +		     desc->depth, irq_desc_get_irq(desc));

If we change this then we really want separate messages which makes it
clear what this is about. Something like:

        if (likely(depth == 1)) {
        	if (WARN_ONCE(suspended, "Enable of suspended irq %d", irq))
                	return;
                ....
                return;
        }

        if (WARN_ONCE(!depth, "Unbalanced enable of irq %d", irq))
        	return;

	desc->depth--;

Hmm?

Thanks,

        tglx