From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [112.213.38.117]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49480E77188 for ; Fri, 3 Jan 2025 11:17:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from boromir.ozlabs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4YPgyR6Crzz30V3; Fri, 3 Jan 2025 22:17:03 +1100 (AEDT) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=185.176.79.56 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=lists.ozlabs.org; s=201707; t=1735903023; cv=none; b=eZ5TbxjphD36fVNEsLkCJgapO4W03HEisksGTr3PZcF9e9oUOM8QJUXORnUM/h4eGvS9x23k48trJO90sDdR6/GHcci+iaX5dcyfvYBElgeKC0C3gjGimnM2bhqeRP9DwTzjRZzo/XR0DYCesMM2Y/2S0ebimQxoMDivmS7jhVmYMLtclVV2DJYbmIXLA808J7bqnRKpPCm+gRtZetshu3Lt7vfmT53xJBBxj5N+kXeH2bk2u8jg0pO+XoE5gsh9qvvthB+B6HM03PdLkzdoLp0nuJA+EDGHr1rtnjOU6MMRGErsqAhCmDWq6MwMZIDlNJvNz/KrNgD2IWDjyK/2vQ== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=lists.ozlabs.org; s=201707; t=1735903023; c=relaxed/relaxed; bh=XHOAbo5lWTu4pmQDsBp/wxFWWLS1pgmOveb6lpLWysM=; h=Date:From:To:CC:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=mpwL0YvWoNQa8FktIdl4Jtr2X5k0oCqeReloGtxszZABd8QP9iWxAOrFj64dmnY9wDNnHpNEdxEXJOjVnUYoxhwIj4eXX2T2YNzx9eEa7y0ogin5HbSJrpcVrcwRgWN88c826YKcSmu5zjNrgOmKrZmztsRmGl6tKwKKS04TJnj5Qo4butLWgQ9Gqpc94a1ibtb96xStRGhfLJ0ynqwjGv3EBaHMYOiupeMjoUb7DlFB058q1RerrCzHiopyJBYsQsjmXsOCaivbbuGhgzqAVBRDyi4F84g6GjlvuwBBOblSmn8rzQfcH41CBLNMkUCcN/2Qa52JagShPofGzzfVcw== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; lists.ozlabs.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com; spf=pass (client-ip=185.176.79.56; helo=frasgout.his.huawei.com; envelope-from=jonathan.cameron@huawei.com; receiver=lists.ozlabs.org) smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com (client-ip=185.176.79.56; helo=frasgout.his.huawei.com; envelope-from=jonathan.cameron@huawei.com; receiver=lists.ozlabs.org) Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4YPgyQ2sGGz30Tk for ; Fri, 3 Jan 2025 22:16:59 +1100 (AEDT) Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.18.186.216]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4YPgxF4ty1z6K6JG; Fri, 3 Jan 2025 19:16:01 +0800 (CST) Received: from frapeml500008.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.182.85.71]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 60554140C72; Fri, 3 Jan 2025 19:16:53 +0800 (CST) Received: from localhost (10.203.177.66) by frapeml500008.china.huawei.com (7.182.85.71) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.1.2507.39; Fri, 3 Jan 2025 12:16:52 +0100 Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2025 11:16:51 +0000 From: Jonathan Cameron To: Atharva Tiwari CC: Mahesh J Salgaonkar , Oliver O'Halloran , Bjorn Helgaas , , , Subject: Re: [PATCH] PCI/ERR: use panic instead pci_info for device recovery failure in PCIe Message-ID: <20250103111651.00007c57@huawei.com> In-Reply-To: <20241227065253.72323-1-evepolonium@gmail.com> References: <20241227065253.72323-1-evepolonium@gmail.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 4.3.0 (GTK 3.24.42; x86_64-w64-mingw32) X-Mailing-List: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org List-Id: List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Archive: , List-Subscribe: , , List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.203.177.66] X-ClientProxiedBy: lhrpeml100002.china.huawei.com (7.191.160.241) To frapeml500008.china.huawei.com (7.182.85.71) On Fri, 27 Dec 2024 12:22:53 +0530 Atharva Tiwari wrote: > update failed in drivers/pci/pcie/err.c to > trigger a kernel panic instead of pci_info > > Thanks Rewrite message as described in submitting patches documentation. Key thing here is question of 'why?' A question was in that comment, what is your reasoning for panic being the correct choice? Jonathan > > Signed-off-by: Atharva Tiwari > --- > drivers/pci/pcie/err.c | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/pci/pcie/err.c b/drivers/pci/pcie/err.c > index 31090770fffc..2630b88564d8 100644 > --- a/drivers/pci/pcie/err.c > +++ b/drivers/pci/pcie/err.c > @@ -271,8 +271,8 @@ pci_ers_result_t pcie_do_recovery(struct pci_dev *dev, > > pci_uevent_ers(bridge, PCI_ERS_RESULT_DISCONNECT); > > - /* TODO: Should kernel panic here? */ > - pci_info(bridge, "device recovery failed\n"); > + > + panic("Kernel Panic: %s: Device recovery failed\n", pci_name(bridge)); > > return status; > }