Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-144764-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2024 10:35:21 +0200
From: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc: Alex Elder <elder@linaro.org>, corbet@lwn.net,
	workflows@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation: coding-style: don't encourage WARN*()
Message-ID: <2024041544-fester-undead-7949@gregkh>
References: <20240414170850.148122-1-elder@linaro.org>
 <ZhzgTeEHFF19N3UZ@infradead.org>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ZhzgTeEHFF19N3UZ@infradead.org>

On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 01:07:41AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> No, this advice is wronger than wrong.  If you set panic_on_warn you
> get to keep the pieces.  
> 

But don't add new WARN() calls please, just properly clean up and handle
the error.  And any WARN() that userspace can trigger ends up triggering
syzbot reports which also is a major pain, even if you don't have
panic_on_warn enabled.

And I think the "do not use panic_on_warn" recommendation has been
ignored, given the huge use of it by vendors who have enabled it (i.e.
all Samsung phones and cloud servers).

thanks,

greg k-h