On Thu 22-11-18 17:51:04, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> Just a bit of paranoia, since if we start pushing this deep into
> callchains it's hard to spot all places where an mmu notifier
> implementation might fail when it's not allowed to.
What does WARN give you more than the existing pr_info? Is really
backtrace that interesting?
> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx>
> Cc: "Christian König" <christian.koenig@xxxxxxx>
> Cc: David Rientjes <rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx>
> Cc: "Jérôme Glisse" <jglisse@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: linux-mm@xxxxxxxxx
> Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> mm/mmu_notifier.c | 2 ++
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/mm/mmu_notifier.c b/mm/mmu_notifier.c
> index 5119ff846769..59e102589a25 100644
> --- a/mm/mmu_notifier.c
> +++ b/mm/mmu_notifier.c
> @@ -190,6 +190,8 @@ int __mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start(struct mm_struct *mm,
> pr_info("%pS callback failed with %d in %sblockable context.\n",
> mn->ops->invalidate_range_start, _ret,
> !blockable ? "non-" : "");
> + WARN(blockable,"%pS callback failure not allowed\n",
> + mn->ops->invalidate_range_start);
> ret = _ret;
> }
> }
> --
> 2.19.1
>
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
