Hi Luck, Borislav,
OK, since you all think it is not necessary, I think I will drop patch1.
And thanks for your comments. :)
So, how about patch2 ?
If you need more detail, please tell me. Thanks. :)
On 10/24/2012 12:16 AM, Luck, Tony wrote:
First of all, I do think I was answering your
> 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 ?
Yes - but there is a fuzzy line over where it is good to check for "something
wrong"
or whether to trust that the caller of the
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 07:30:21PM +0800, Tang Chen wrote:
> 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 ?
Please read the code. We're skipping the cpu == dying case.
--
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 06:34:33PM +0800, Miao Xie wrote:
> So we add this WARN_ON_ONCE(), it can tell the developers that there
> is something wrong in the code if it is triggered.
First of all, the WARN_ON_ONCE will fire only once during system
lifetime (well, doh, of course) which diminishes
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
On tue, 23 Oct 2012 12:20:08 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 06:17:31PM +0800, Miao Xie wrote:
>> This function is called after a cpu is offline, in other words, it is
>> impossible that the cpu is still in cpu_online_mask. otherwise there
>> is something wrong in the code.
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 06:17:31PM +0800, Miao Xie wrote:
> This function is called after a cpu is offline, in other words, it is
> impossible that the cpu is still in cpu_online_mask. otherwise there
> is something wrong in the code.
And?
Are you answering my question or explaining the code
On tue, 23 Oct 2012 11:52:34 +0200, 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()
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
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
On tue, 23 Oct 2012 11:52:34 +0200, 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
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 06:17:31PM +0800, Miao Xie wrote:
This function is called after a cpu is offline, in other words, it is
impossible that the cpu is still in cpu_online_mask. otherwise there
is something wrong in the code.
And?
Are you answering my question or explaining the code just
On tue, 23 Oct 2012 12:20:08 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 06:17:31PM +0800, Miao Xie wrote:
This function is called after a cpu is offline, in other words, it is
impossible that the cpu is still in cpu_online_mask. otherwise there
is something wrong in the code.
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
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 06:34:33PM +0800, Miao Xie wrote:
So we add this WARN_ON_ONCE(), it can tell the developers that there
is something wrong in the code if it is triggered.
First of all, the WARN_ON_ONCE will fire only once during system
lifetime (well, doh, of course) which diminishes
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 07:30:21PM +0800, Tang Chen wrote:
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 ?
Please read the code. We're skipping the cpu == dying case.
--
Regards/Gruss,
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 ?
Yes - but there is a fuzzy line over where it is good to check for something
wrong
or whether to trust that the caller of the function
Hi Luck, Borislav,
OK, since you all think it is not necessary, I think I will drop patch1.
And thanks for your comments. :)
So, how about patch2 ?
If you need more detail, please tell me. Thanks. :)
On 10/24/2012 12:16 AM, Luck, Tony wrote:
First of all, I do think I was answering your
On 10/22/2012 06:14 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 10:10:24AM +0800, Tang Chen wrote:
I don't why before we just jumped over it. But I think if we have an
online cpu == dying here, it must be wrong. So I think we should warn
it, not just jump over it.
Why do we need to
On 10/22/2012 06:14 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 10:10:24AM +0800, Tang Chen wrote:
I don't why before we just jumped over it. But I think if we have an
online cpu == dying here, it must be wrong. So I think we should warn
it, not just jump over it.
Why do we need to
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 10:10:24AM +0800, Tang Chen wrote:
> I don't why before we just jumped over it. But I think if we have an
> online cpu == dying here, it must be wrong. So I think we should warn
> it, not just jump over it.
Why do we need to warn? What good would that bring us?
AFAICT,
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 10:10:24AM +0800, Tang Chen wrote:
I don't why before we just jumped over it. But I think if we have an
online cpu == dying here, it must be wrong. So I think we should warn
it, not just jump over it.
Why do we need to warn? What good would that bring us?
AFAICT, the
On 10/22/2012 06:14 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 10:10:24AM +0800, Tang Chen wrote:
I don't why before we just jumped over it. But I think if we have an
online cpu == dying here, it must be wrong. So I think we should warn
it, not just jump over it.
Why do we need to
On 10/22/2012 06:14 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 10:10:24AM +0800, Tang Chen wrote:
I don't why before we just jumped over it. But I think if we have an
online cpu == dying here, it must be wrong. So I think we should warn
it, not just jump over it.
Why do we need to
On 10/20/2012 12:40 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 01:45:27PM +0800, Tang Chen wrote:
cmci_rediscover() is only called by the CPU_POST_DEAD event handler,
which means the corresponding cpu has already dead. As a result, it
won't be accessed in the for_each_online_cpu loop.
On 10/20/2012 12:40 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 01:45:27PM +0800, Tang Chen wrote:
cmci_rediscover() is only called by the CPU_POST_DEAD event handler,
which means the corresponding cpu has already dead. As a result, it
won't be accessed in the for_each_online_cpu loop.
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 01:45:27PM +0800, Tang Chen wrote:
> cmci_rediscover() is only called by the CPU_POST_DEAD event handler,
> which means the corresponding cpu has already dead. As a result, it
> won't be accessed in the for_each_online_cpu loop.
> So, we could change the if(cpu == dying)
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 01:45:27PM +0800, Tang Chen wrote:
> cmci_rediscover() is only called by the CPU_POST_DEAD event handler,
> which means the corresponding cpu has already dead. As a result, it
> won't be accessed in the for_each_online_cpu loop.
> So, we could change the if(cpu == dying)
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 01:45:27PM +0800, Tang Chen wrote:
cmci_rediscover() is only called by the CPU_POST_DEAD event handler,
which means the corresponding cpu has already dead. As a result, it
won't be accessed in the for_each_online_cpu loop.
So, we could change the if(cpu == dying)
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 01:45:27PM +0800, Tang Chen wrote:
cmci_rediscover() is only called by the CPU_POST_DEAD event handler,
which means the corresponding cpu has already dead. As a result, it
won't be accessed in the for_each_online_cpu loop.
So, we could change the if(cpu == dying)
cmci_rediscover() is only called by the CPU_POST_DEAD event handler,
which means the corresponding cpu has already dead. As a result, it
won't be accessed in the for_each_online_cpu loop.
So, we could change the if(cpu == dying) statement into a WARN_ON_ONCE().
Signed-off-by: Tang Chen
---
cmci_rediscover() is only called by the CPU_POST_DEAD event handler,
which means the corresponding cpu has already dead. As a result, it
won't be accessed in the for_each_online_cpu loop.
So, we could change the if(cpu == dying) statement into a WARN_ON_ONCE().
Signed-off-by: Tang Chen
32 matches
Mail list logo
