From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 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 smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D788C1F9ABC; Fri, 3 Jan 2025 11:16:55 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=185.176.79.56 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1735903019; cv=none; b=oj4seAke9SJYQxl6QdgBoHrMugpZzkVX8DT135f/JvYF/Tq7WU55rhPZQmELS3POu7QEvgRUqm3SCaTj7OfGwkzPlFLbo0sOhPhu3Aq1B2FdX3rGahWZta3ExOOD2tySqkK1xRivneTvkzQcLoCrMWOlx2ksLWqRpEtxW+e7070= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1735903019; c=relaxed/simple; bh=/hvtFIoK2qgtL9r1xnJahwLRHIH9NaLph7TIvsrFzgA=; h=Date:From:To:CC:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=m1YVVgtT2mLHR1EElz61NSBL2iPTFdqZlRbuVtybQ5DrslCD5pKLoZ5xI8yFfctMnZk1pTclHVN9lBz4mxbrBslDYwpLqUUurThMiB1ZeidAN+1JbTXros9j0Ac5t/Mutx3hfNiwcdmXyGf4lcZjBx77B8WUX/lKddS5Dp6M5mY= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com; arc=none smtp.client-ip=185.176.79.56 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com 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) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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; > }