Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753555Ab2JWLbi (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Oct 2012 07:31:38 -0400 Received: from cn.fujitsu.com ([222.73.24.84]:25370 "EHLO song.cn.fujitsu.com" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751958Ab2JWLbh (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Oct 2012 07:31:37 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.80,635,1344182400"; d="scan'208";a="6052302" Message-ID: <50867FCD.9010907@cn.fujitsu.com> Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 19:30:21 +0800 From: Tang Chen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120430 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Borislav Petkov , tony.luck@intel.com, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, hpa@zytor.com, miaox@cn.fujitsu.com, laijs@cn.fujitsu.com, wency@cn.fujitsu.com, x86@kernel.org, linux-edac@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] Replace if statement with WARN_ON_ONCE() in cmci_rediscover(). References: <1350625528-1385-1-git-send-email-tangchen@cn.fujitsu.com> <1350625528-1385-2-git-send-email-tangchen@cn.fujitsu.com> <20121019164045.GE11958@aftab.osrc.amd.com> <5084AB10.7010807@cn.fujitsu.com> <20121022101442.GB8352@liondog.tnic> <50860711.10807@cn.fujitsu.com> <20121023095234.GA22715@liondog.tnic> In-Reply-To: <20121023095234.GA22715@liondog.tnic> X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on mailserver/fnst(Release 8.5.3|September 15, 2011) at 2012/10/23 19:30:54, Serialize by Router on mailserver/fnst(Release 8.5.3|September 15, 2011) at 2012/10/23 19:30:59, Serialize complete at 2012/10/23 19:30:59 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1293 Lines: 41 On 10/23/2012 05:52 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 10:55:13AM +0800, Tang Chen wrote: >> So, how about warn once, and continue: >> if (cpu == dying) { >> WARN_ON_ONCE(cpu == dying); >> continue; >> } >> >> or, use BUG_ON() instead ? > > Let me ask you again, but I want you to think real hard this time: > > "Why do we need to warn? What good would that bring us?" Hi, First of all, I do think I was answering your question. As I said before, if an online cpu == dying here, there must be something wrong. Am I right here ? If so, I think the "good" is obvious. If we don't output anything when an online cpu == dying, nobody will know this happens. The kernel is in wrong state, but nobody knows that, I don't see any good. Actually, I used BUG_ON() in my v1 patch. So I dropped the if statement. But Tejun asked me to use WARN_ON_ONCE(). And I forgot to add the if statement. Please refer to https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/10/16/528 And again, the "good" is inform user the kernel is in wrong state. Thanks. :) > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/