10.12.2021 22:08, Rafael J. Wysocki пишет:
> On Fri, Dec 10, 2021 at 7:54 PM Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> 10.12.2021 21:32, Rafael J. Wysocki пишет:
>>> On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 7:02 PM Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Emit warning if unregister_restart_handler() fails since it never should
>>>> fail. This will ease further API development by catching mistakes early.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>> ---
>>>> kernel/reboot.c | 2 +-
>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/kernel/reboot.c b/kernel/reboot.c
>>>> index e6659ae329f1..f0e7b9c13f6b 100644
>>>> --- a/kernel/reboot.c
>>>> +++ b/kernel/reboot.c
>>>> @@ -210,7 +210,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(register_restart_handler);
>>>> */
>>>> int unregister_restart_handler(struct notifier_block *nb)
>>>> {
>>>> - return atomic_notifier_chain_unregister(&restart_handler_list, nb);
>>>> + return WARN_ON(atomic_notifier_chain_unregister(&restart_handler_list, nb));
>>>
>>> The only reason why it can fail is if the object pointed to by nb is
>>> not in the chain.
>>
>> I had exactly this case where object wasn't in the chain due to a bug
>> and this warning was very helpful.
>
> During the development. In production it would be rather annoying.
>
>>> Why WARN() about this? And what about systems with
>>> panic_on_warn set?
>>
>> That warning condition will never happen normally, only when something
>> is seriously wrong.
>>
>> Those systems with panic_on_warn will get what was they asked for.
>
> They may not be asking for panicking on bugs in the reboot notifier
> code, though. That's what your change is making them panic on.
>
Alright, I'll drop the warnings and turn the warning about uniqueness
into error or warning message.
