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;
Date:   Wed, 6 Jul 2022 20:53:33 +0530
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Cc:     Linux PM <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        kernel test robot <oliver.sang@intel.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 2/3] cpufreq: Panic if policy is active in
 cpufreq_policy_free()
Message-ID: <20220706152333.fvgybznz3j6ffmre@vireshk-i7>
References: <8c3d50faf8811e86136fb3f9c459e43fc3c50bc0.1653565641.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
 <426bf6edc80b2e944d459fa7b8dffbe8b73bb3d9.1653623526.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
 <CAJZ5v0gswDEdK9-gC1dPr9BFPv3G9rs+JYe-7=1JZ11OMoBb-g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20220615045957.55ocdyddcac3vwct@vireshk-i7>
 <CAJZ5v0gDCS8mkoFjnqOAi9gGuhTheE79FwvRWgeoxagMj3Ok0Q@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAJZ5v0gDCS8mkoFjnqOAi9gGuhTheE79FwvRWgeoxagMj3Ok0Q@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On 06-07-22, 15:49, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> WARN_ON() would be somewhat better, but then I'm not sure if having a
> full call trace in this case is really useful, because we know when
> cpufreq_policy_free() can be called anyway.
> 
> Maybe just print a warning message.

The warning will get printed, yes, but I am sure everyone will end up
ignoring it, once it happens.

One of the benefits of printing the call-stack is people will take it
seriously and report it, and we won't miss a bug, if one gets in
somehow.

-- 
viresh