From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Josh Poimboeuf Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 04/24] arm64/cpu: Mark cpu_die() __noreturn Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2023 11:45:38 -0800 Message-ID: <20230215194538.aiiris3uabnuvkkg@treble> References: <14274f04-2991-95bd-c29b-07e86e8755c1@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=1676490341; bh=jEHEKJREN3+faSwa9KQfDCZrIk1boGFeW1CEIEtwaE8=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=nR0NlH9Idu9r6K5BB6SiskW/nN4Duv8oUu4t8oAsMW/BA2jHnn50sUmTtFA09snEM MM4Q1KeVxIEK0CQ3heZ6KGEcJDJrmingPvv4ff3yLJnpeg2zJ4He1vCJjQd4s9mOGJ HhE0qrDT5xUO3xGvs5zweCTvugYIA2adLOusrfvLPAxv6b4Cny+j0eHRlRanyAeAV0 ysxu48fte0a0SA7XcnPw1U31MXQzSfjcPpTrp4Qgi04O07kA/LeXjWVthIX5CMIF30 JAfOEJGYLSGZoEytWeIGwTCLRlwIMdQ5V+BaoKw5Pr+bw7iEZ2yNGIfGT3LJDZnQTo qDwCO7AGpVLow== Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" To: Mark Rutland Cc: Philippe =?utf-8?Q?Mathieu-Daud=C3=A9?= , juri.lelli@redhat.com, dalias@libc.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org, catalin.marinas@arm.com, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, x86@kernel.org, jiaxun.yang@flygoat.com, linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, bsegall@google.com, jcmvbkbc@gmail.com, guoren@kernel.org, hpa@zytor.com, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, kernel@xen0n.name, will@kernel.org, vschneid@redhat.com, f.fainelli@gmail.com, vincent.guittot@linaro.org, ysato@users.sourceforge.jp, chenhuacai@kernel.org, linux@armlinux.org.uk, linux-csky@vger.kernel.org, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, mingo@redhat.com, bcm-kernel-feedback-list@broadcom.com, mgorman@suse.de, mattst88@gmail.com, linux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org, paulmck@kernel.org, ri On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 01:09:21PM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote: > On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 09:13:08AM +0100, Philippe Mathieu-Daud=C3=A9 wro= te: > > On 14/2/23 08:05, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > > > cpu_die() doesn't return. Annotate it as such. By extension this al= so > > > makes arch_cpu_idle_dead() noreturn. > > >=20 > > > Signed-off-by: Josh Poimboeuf > > > --- > > > arch/arm64/include/asm/smp.h | 2 +- > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > >=20 > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/smp.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/sm= p.h > > > index fc55f5a57a06..5733a31bab08 100644 > > > --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/smp.h > > > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/smp.h > > > @@ -100,7 +100,7 @@ static inline void arch_send_wakeup_ipi_mask(cons= t struct cpumask *mask) > > > extern int __cpu_disable(void); > > > extern void __cpu_die(unsigned int cpu); > > > -extern void cpu_die(void); > > > +extern void __noreturn cpu_die(void); > > > extern void cpu_die_early(void); > >=20 > > Shouldn't cpu_operations::cpu_die() be declared noreturn first? >=20 > The cpu_die() function ends with a BUG(), and so does not return, even if= a > cpu_operations::cpu_die() function that it calls erroneously returned. >=20 > We *could* mark cpu_operations::cpu_die() as noreturn, but I'd prefer tha= t we > did not so that the compiler doesn't optimize away the BUG() which is the= re to > catch such erroneous returns. >=20 > That said, could we please add __noreturn to the implementation of cpu_di= e() in > arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c? i.e. the fixup below. Done. > With that fixup: >=20 > Acked-by: Mark Rutland Thanks! --=20 Josh