From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dmitry Osipenko Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2021 19:49:47 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 05/25] reboot: Warn if restart handler has duplicated priority Message-Id: <7875d10b-0d9b-ca29-668b-630ea3650fd0@gmail.com> List-Id: References: <20211126180101.27818-1-digetx@gmail.com> <20211126180101.27818-6-digetx@gmail.com> <033ddf2a-6223-1a82-ec64-30f17c891f67@gmail.com> <091321ea-4919-0579-88a8-23d05871575d@gmail.com> <45025b2d-4be1-f694-be61-31903795cf5d@gmail.com> <45228c88-4d51-591e-5da5-9ec468e71684@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , =?UTF-8?B?TWljaGHFgiBNaXJvc8WCYXc=?= Cc: Thierry Reding , Jonathan Hunter , Russell King , Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , Guo Ren , Geert Uytterhoeven , Greg Ungerer , Joshua Thompson , Thomas Bogendoerfer , Sebastian Reichel , Linus Walleij , Philipp Zabel , Greentime Hu , Vincent Chen , "James E.J. Bottomley" , Helge Deller , Michael Ellerman , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Paul Mackerras , Paul Walmsley , Palmer Dabbelt , Albert Ou , Yoshinori Sato , Rich Felker , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , Borislav Petkov , Dave Hansen , the arch/x86 maintainers , "H. Peter Anvin" , Boris Ostrovsky , Juergen Gross , Stefano Stabellini , Len Brown , Santosh Shilimkar , Krzysztof Kozlowski , Liam Girdwood , Mark Brown , Pavel Machek , Lee Jones , Andrew Morton , Guenter Roeck , Daniel Lezcano , Andy Shevchenko , Ulf Hansson , alankao@andestech.com, "K . C . Kuen-Chern Lin" , Linux ARM , Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-csky@vger.kernel.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org, linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev , linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, Linux-sh list , xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, ACPI Devel Maling List , Linux PM , linux-tegra 10.12.2021 22:44, Dmitry Osipenko пишет: > 10.12.2021 22:42, Dmitry Osipenko пишет: > ... >>>> There is no strong requirement for priorities to be unique, the reboot.c >>>> code will work properly. >>> >>> In which case adding the WARN() is not appropriate IMV. >>> >>> Also I've looked at the existing code and at least in some cases the >>> order in which the notifiers run doesn't matter. I'm not sure what >>> the purpose of this patch is TBH. >> >> The purpose is to let developer know that driver needs to be corrected. >> >>>> The potential problem is on the user's side and the warning is intended >>>> to aid the user. >>> >>> Unless somebody has the panic_on_warn mentioned previously set and >>> really the user need not understand what the WARN() is about. IOW, >>> WARN() helps developers, not users. >>> >>>> We can make it a strong requirement, but only after converting and >>>> testing all kernel drivers. >>> >>> Right. >>> >>>> I'll consider to add patches for that. >>> >>> But can you avoid adding more patches to this series? >> >> I won't add more patches since such patches can be added only after >> completion of transition to the new API of the whole kernel. >> > > Thank you for the review. > I meant you, Rafael, and Michał, just in case :)