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:   Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>
To:     Vincent Donnefort <vdonnefort@google.com>, peterz@infradead.org,
        tglx@linutronix.de
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, regressions@leemhuis.info,
        kernel-team@android.com, Vincent Donnefort <vdonnefort@google.com>,
        Derek Dolney <z23@posteo.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] cpu/hotplug: Do not bail-out in DYING/STARTING sections
In-Reply-To: <20220704131346.2650163-1-vdonnefort@google.com>
References: <20220704131346.2650163-1-vdonnefort@google.com>
Date:   Tue, 19 Jul 2022 16:12:03 +0100
Message-ID: <xhsmhfsix6ssc.mognet@vschneid.remote.csb>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: bulk

On 04/07/22 14:13, Vincent Donnefort wrote:
> +static int _cpuhp_invoke_callback_range(bool bringup,
> +					unsigned int cpu,
> +					struct cpuhp_cpu_state *st,
> +					enum cpuhp_state target,
> +					bool nofail)
[...]
> +		if (nofail) {
> +			pr_warn("CPU %u %s state %s (%d) failed (%d)\n",
> +				cpu, bringup ? "UP" : "DOWN",
> +				cpuhp_get_step(st->state)->name,
> +				st->state, err);
> +			ret = -1;

On a single failure we'll get two warns (WARN_ON_ONCE() + pr_warn(), and
then subsequently just the pr_warn()), is that intended?

Also, why not have ret = err here?

> +		} else {
> +			ret = err;
>                       break;
> +		}
>       }
>
> -	return err;
> +	return ret;

> +static inline void cpuhp_invoke_callback_range_nofail(bool bringup,
> +						      unsigned int cpu,
> +						      struct cpuhp_cpu_state *st,
> +						      enum cpuhp_state target)
> +{
> +	WARN_ON_ONCE(_cpuhp_invoke_callback_range(bringup, cpu, st, target, true));
>  }
>