From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Josh Poimboeuf Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 13/24] sh/cpu: Make sure play_dead() doesn't return Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2023 10:28:31 -0800 Message-ID: <20230214182831.7l73rzoeqjowbyly@treble> References: <2575e5f7-b11a-020f-06ef-ba42301d7415@linaro.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1676399315; bh=FbF6sDzVu8IYeXRzBwpTRcd2V9cyuwcFeFjq0Ymm7Do=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=bHhn4MxW4jaWFJ2rWLLTx3PrN1UgQYhr8rIIi09a5nKp9q1ESDXYN6B61WfPK+RCk kGOo0Ttnppg2I0ImN2NZWVnYn5Hj3XaN0LDcyDf/bwqXXcmVPP3k8vhBjHFmJR2Bwl 59QsKYYCyuVJKOZH8QhykBvzswD6lxU5Dm7UQEUn/f61z0n0wk0iCLguGpDT9BQtko BMamtHKjb0Kw6J2wXAyHy1UIJAIQSjMfecn63l73DrJUySuInHCUTNK20Fu4b0MRwy oFsYNMAp0xS4VwbLeGrloRppo8ZqhdA7joLLtCUVdDhIWqqYlEK1n6Wnc+Yaj98vfY KvhcfOKc0ivxg== Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2575e5f7-b11a-020f-06ef-ba42301d7415@linaro.org> List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" To: Philippe =?utf-8?Q?Mathieu-Daud=C3=A9?= Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jgross@suse.com, richard.henderson@linaro.org, ink@jurassic.park.msu.ru, mattst88@gmail.com, linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org, linux@armlinux.org.uk, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, catalin.marinas@arm.com, will@kernel.org, guoren@kernel.org, linux-csky@vger.kernel.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, chenhuacai@kernel.org, kernel@xen0n.name, loongarch@lists.linux.dev, f.fainelli@gmail.com, bcm-kernel-feedback-list@broadcom.com, tsbogend@alpha.franken.de, linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, jiaxun.yang@flygoat.com, mpe@ellerman.id.au, npiggin@gmail.com, christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, ysato@users.sourceforge.jp, dalias@libc.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat. On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 08:57:39AM +0100, Philippe Mathieu-Daud=C3=A9 wrote: > On 14/2/23 08:05, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > > play_dead() doesn't return. Make that more explicit with a BUG(). > >=20 > > BUG() is preferable to unreachable() because BUG() is a more explicit > > failure mode and avoids undefined behavior like falling off the edge of > > the function into whatever code happens to be next. > >=20 > > Signed-off-by: Josh Poimboeuf > > --- > > arch/sh/include/asm/smp-ops.h | 1 + > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > >=20 > > diff --git a/arch/sh/include/asm/smp-ops.h b/arch/sh/include/asm/smp-op= s.h > > index e27702130eb6..63866b1595a0 100644 > > --- a/arch/sh/include/asm/smp-ops.h > > +++ b/arch/sh/include/asm/smp-ops.h > > @@ -27,6 +27,7 @@ static inline void plat_smp_setup(void) > > static inline void play_dead(void) > > { > > mp_ops->play_dead(); > > + BUG(); > > } >=20 > Shouldn't we decorate plat_smp_ops::play_dead() as noreturn first? I guess it really depends on how far we want to go down the __noreturn rabbit hole. To keep the patch set constrained yet still useful I stopped when I got to a function pointer, as I think it still needs a BUG() afterwards either way. That said, there would still be benefits of adding __noreturn to function pointers, I just wanted to keep the patch set down to a manageable size ;-) --=20 Josh