From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Gleixner Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpu/hotplug: handle unbalanced hotplug enable/disable Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 12:17:14 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: References: <1461214567-3356-1-git-send-email-lianwei.wang@gmail.com> <20160421105042.GI3408@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Return-path: Received: from www.linutronix.de ([62.245.132.108]:51522 "EHLO Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752504AbcD0KSx (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Apr 2016 06:18:53 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org To: Lianwei Wang Cc: Peter Zijlstra , oleg@redhat.com, Ingo Molnar , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 25 Apr 2016, Lianwei Wang wrote: > On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 1:22 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > >> Anyway, from a product perspective way, if we don't want to restore > >> the unbalanced counter to 0, then maybe a BUG_ON is more reasonable > >> than WARN_ON. > > > > Not at all. BUG_ON is the last resort if we have no other way to handle an > > issue. > Actually to the customer, you do nothing currently at all, and once it > happened then there is no way for the customer to recover it except do > a power cycle. A BUG_ON can trigger a power cycle and recover it. Do you have a single incident where this happened? Thanks, tglx