Re: [PATCH v4 05/25] reboot: Warn if restart handler has duplicated priority
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 05/25] reboot: Warn if restart handler has duplicated priority
- From: Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2021 22:44:41 +0300
- Cc: Michał Mirosław <mirq-linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@xxxxxxxxx>, Jonathan Hunter <jonathanh@xxxxxxxxxx>, Russell King <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@xxxxxxx>, Will Deacon <will@xxxxxxxxxx>, Guo Ren <guoren@xxxxxxxxxx>, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Greg Ungerer <gerg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Joshua Thompson <funaho@xxxxxxxxx>, Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Sebastian Reichel <sre@xxxxxxxxxx>, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx>, Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Greentime Hu <green.hu@xxxxxxxxx>, Vincent Chen <deanbo422@xxxxxxxxx>, "James E.J. Bottomley" <James.Bottomley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Helge Deller <deller@xxxxxx>, Michael Ellerman <mpe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Paul Mackerras <paulus@xxxxxxxxx>, Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@xxxxxxxxxx>, Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Albert Ou <aou@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Yoshinori Sato <ysato@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Rich Felker <dalias@xxxxxxxx>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx>, Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxxxx>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@xxxxxxxxxx>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@xxxxxxxxx>, Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx>, Juergen Gross <jgross@xxxxxxxx>, Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>, Len Brown <lenb@xxxxxxxxxx>, Santosh Shilimkar <ssantosh@xxxxxxxxxx>, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@xxxxxxxxx>, Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx>, Pavel Machek <pavel@xxxxxx>, Lee Jones <lee.jones@xxxxxxxxxx>, Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@xxxxxxxxxx>, Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@xxxxxxxxxx>, alankao@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, "K . C . Kuen-Chern Lin" <kclin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-csky@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-ia64@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-m68k@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-mips@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-parisc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-riscv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Linux-sh list <linux-sh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Linux PM <linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-tegra <linux-tegra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- In-reply-to: <45228c88-4d51-591e-5da5-9ec468e71684@gmail.com>
- References: <20211126180101.27818-1-digetx@gmail.com> <20211126180101.27818-6-digetx@gmail.com> <YaLNOJTM+lVq+YNS@qmqm.qmqm.pl> <033ddf2a-6223-1a82-ec64-30f17c891f67@gmail.com> <YaQeQgbW+CjEdsqG@qmqm.qmqm.pl> <091321ea-4919-0579-88a8-23d05871575d@gmail.com> <CAJZ5v0jMvdhfBqjY+V9h_Z6EH1ohuJH+KjuGiOw_Jor1Tnp7vg@mail.gmail.com> <45025b2d-4be1-f694-be61-31903795cf5d@gmail.com> <CAJZ5v0ieTwnBVjW8R_VTdPFH3yr5AwLc+ZEG5N3KrpTH+j8qZw@mail.gmail.com> <45228c88-4d51-591e-5da5-9ec468e71684@gmail.com>
- User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.14.0
10.12.2021 22:42, Dmitry Osipenko пишет:
...
>>> There is no strong requirement for priorities to be unique, the reboot.c
>>> code will work properly.
>>
>> In which case adding the WARN() is not appropriate IMV.
>>
>> Also I've looked at the existing code and at least in some cases the
>> order in which the notifiers run doesn't matter. I'm not sure what
>> the purpose of this patch is TBH.
>
> The purpose is to let developer know that driver needs to be corrected.
>
>>> The potential problem is on the user's side and the warning is intended
>>> to aid the user.
>>
>> Unless somebody has the panic_on_warn mentioned previously set and
>> really the user need not understand what the WARN() is about. IOW,
>> WARN() helps developers, not users.
>>
>>> We can make it a strong requirement, but only after converting and
>>> testing all kernel drivers.
>>
>> Right.
>>
>>> I'll consider to add patches for that.
>>
>> But can you avoid adding more patches to this series?
>
> I won't add more patches since such patches can be added only after
> completion of transition to the new API of the whole kernel.
>
Thank you for the review.
[Index of Archives]
[Linux Kernel]
[Sparc Linux]
[DCCP]
[Linux ARM]
[Yosemite News]
[Linux SCSI]
[Linux x86_64]
[Linux for Ham Radio]