Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] remoteproc: core: change to ordered workqueue for crash handler

[Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org>]

On Tue, Dec 06, 2022 at 09:28:23AM +0800, Aiqun(Maria) Yu wrote:
> On 12/3/2022 1:34 AM, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 02, 2022 at 05:45:32PM +0800, Maria Yu wrote:
> > > Only the first detected crash needed to be handled, so change
> > > to ordered workqueue to avoid unnecessary multi active work at
> > > the same time. This will reduce the pm_relax unnecessary concurrency.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Maria Yu <quic_aiquny@quicinc.com>
> > > ---
> > >   drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c | 4 ++--
> > >   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> > > index c2d0af048c69..4b973eea10bb 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> > > @@ -2728,8 +2728,8 @@ static void __exit rproc_exit_panic(void)
> > >   static int __init remoteproc_init(void)
> > >   {
> > > -	rproc_recovery_wq = alloc_workqueue("rproc_recovery_wq",
> > > -						WQ_UNBOUND | WQ_FREEZABLE, 0);
> > > +	rproc_recovery_wq = alloc_ordered_workqueue("rproc_recovery_wq",
> > > +						WQ_FREEZABLE, 0);
> > 
> > There is an indentation issue with the second line and this patch doesn't
> > compile:
> > 
> My Clang 14.0.7 didn't have such kind of compilation error.
> what's your CC version pls? Maybe I can have a try to reproduce.

I was either:

arm-linux-gnueabihf-gcc 9.4.0

or 

aarch64-linux-gnu-gcc 9.4.0

I can't remember if I was compiling for 32 or 64 bit.

> 
> Anyway, I will double confirm if there is any difference with current
> patchset with my compile tested patchset as well.
> 
> >    CC      drivers/remoteproc/imx_dsp_rproc.o
> >    AR      drivers/hwspinlock/built-in.a
> > In file included from /home/mpoirier/work/remoteproc/kernel-review/include/linux/rhashtable-types.h:15,
> >                   from /home/mpoirier/work/remoteproc/kernel-review/include/linux/ipc.h:7,
> >                   from /home/mpoirier/work/remoteproc/kernel-review/include/uapi/linux/sem.h:5,
> >                   from /home/mpoirier/work/remoteproc/kernel-review/include/linux/sem.h:5,
> >                   from /home/mpoirier/work/remoteproc/kernel-review/include/linux/sched.h:15,
> >                   from /home/mpoirier/work/remoteproc/kernel-review/include/linux/delay.h:23,
> >                   from /home/mpoirier/work/remoteproc/kernel-review/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c:19:
> > /home/mpoirier/work/remoteproc/kernel-review/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c: In function ‘remoteproc_init’:
> > /home/mpoirier/work/remoteproc/kernel-review/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c:2738:46: warning: too many arguments for format [-Wformat-extra-args]
> >   2738 |  rproc_recovery_wq = alloc_ordered_workqueue("rproc_recovery_wq",
> >        |                                              ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > /home/mpoirier/work/remoteproc/kernel-review/include/linux/workqueue.h:419:18: note: in definition of macro ‘alloc_ordered_workqueue’
> >    419 |  alloc_workqueue(fmt, WQ_UNBOUND | __WQ_ORDERED |  \
> >        |                  ^~~
> > 
> > Last but not least, please use the get_maintainer.pl script to make sure the
> > right people are CC'ed on your patchsets.get_maintainer.pl will be re-run for next patchset uploading.
> Thank you for reminder!
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Mathieu
> > 
> > >   	if (!rproc_recovery_wq) {
> > >   		pr_err("remoteproc: creation of rproc_recovery_wq failed\n");
> > >   		return -ENOMEM;
> > > -- 
> > > 2.17.1
> > > 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Thx and BRs,
> Aiqun(Maria) Yu