From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753754AbcD0KSz (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Apr 2016 06:18:55 -0400 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 Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 12:17:14 +0200 (CEST) From: Thomas Gleixner To: Lianwei Wang cc: Peter Zijlstra , oleg@redhat.com, Ingo Molnar , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpu/hotplug: handle unbalanced hotplug enable/disable In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <1461214567-3356-1-git-send-email-lianwei.wang@gmail.com> <20160421105042.GI3408@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> User-Agent: Alpine 2.11 (DEB 23 2013-08-11) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Linutronix-Spam-Score: -1.0 X-Linutronix-Spam-Level: - X-Linutronix-Spam-Status: No , -1.0 points, 5.0 required, ALL_TRUSTED=-1,SHORTCIRCUIT=-0.0001,URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@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