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 01030C52D6F for ; Tue, 20 Aug 2024 02:29:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from boromir.ozlabs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4Wnth140Xnz2xZt; Tue, 20 Aug 2024 12:29:05 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=ellerman.id.au Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=150.107.74.76 Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=ellerman.id.au header.i=@ellerman.id.au header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=201909 header.b=EeULGUlN; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from mail.ozlabs.org (gandalf.ozlabs.org [150.107.74.76]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4Wnth13tZ1z2xJJ for ; Tue, 20 Aug 2024 12:29:05 +1000 (AEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ellerman.id.au; s=201909; t=1724120945; bh=JYhMS9u8ZTJ8sPzxbwWOaXQOggyNI+Esur8+zhF4uWQ=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=EeULGUlNGbiOIbjPTsblY2BbDNvAaXAc1D2RMq6U02zOeMbZrfWww5zut3YH32j0L p+3+MJpQkoxz7vfFT7celZVVdPsVyYT1TDG6nXvRVqsrjIHOhs6SRTPXivjD9RSlU3 5PRSGtSVhqWm0IeZlvSNx5YmrEuT2SnuOPrIIdJ+TwE5Zs0mUGCMf8jv1AUUz9q7Dv Ii/OFYII8RHZW2eOs0lcgfMNr98ap0dDS4wrdyBJKxy89lrsLET7g8A21I/+Xty5DF wtTPM4O1psszqJaXOlcu6blf1OPv8OQqe/V1R/pe+OUl+tio+bCc3w83h7Prn6e3gO tmOnVmFZd2Zvg== Received: from authenticated.ozlabs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (Client did not present a certificate) by mail.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4Wnth131JNz4wd6; Tue, 20 Aug 2024 12:29:05 +1000 (AEST) From: Michael Ellerman To: Damien Le Moal , cassel@kernel.org Cc: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, hch@lst.de, linux-ppc@kolla.no, vidra@ufal.mff.cuni.cz Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] ata: pata_macio: Use WARN instead of BUG In-Reply-To: <737ad178-1198-4103-b1ee-46a67ecf12e4@kernel.org> References: <20240819101913.489513-1-mpe@ellerman.id.au> <737ad178-1198-4103-b1ee-46a67ecf12e4@kernel.org> Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2024 12:29:05 +1000 Message-ID: <87bk1osz9q.fsf@mail.lhotse> X-Mailing-List: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org List-Id: List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , , List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Damien Le Moal writes: > On 8/19/24 19:19, Michael Ellerman wrote: >> The overflow/underflow conditions in pata_macio_qc_prep() should never >> happen. But if they do there's no need to kill the system entirely, a >> WARN and failing the IO request should be sufficient and might allow the >> system to keep running. >> >> Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman >> --- >> drivers/ata/pata_macio.c | 7 +++++-- >> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> Not sure if AC_ERR_OTHER is the right error code to use? > > Given that this would trigger if the command split has is buggy, I think that > AC_ERR_SYSTEM would be better. Can you resend with the change and no "RFC" ? Will do. cheers