From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (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 2DC1711181 for ; Wed, 28 Jun 2023 21:06:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5F815C433C9; Wed, 28 Jun 2023 21:06:13 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1687986373; bh=Ng9MErV+FXt3w7E3mEz9cVU8xZAj3zXrh381lvQcwJ4=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=keaCDoxUZKxIZ0GIampVPP5V5J0kz0F6JiH28+AzKQUD11QXAvcmD+iB8DtEeJSsx A9cdAh1P7UnPPlMaFIo3s1V2HMYVtQKNBK1R2hNyJWzkgVr9OqR+hGhPVPHelENQfY /8OK+u+WQjfNnKFDiqRvVsC4306fj1UgHLWZTYAbBQESpQDzkbPhobzGdfkOfjFADf txwJtkbsC8RcYeaVAj4/0KdNcRqVDsagvNdsTlO9Tvx2fL2RXSYLCl6PF0HwZOep9b PizFD1q7G7B1pDU4OCOijEgQRTmhM57apqRM5uGo9ciONblPiATY5UiWVAVK5c0tuc hnOqkMypa8VXg== Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2023 14:06:12 -0700 From: Jakub Kicinski To: Shannon Nelson Cc: "Keller, Jacob E" , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , "davem@davemloft.net" , "brett.creeley@amd.com" , "drivers@pensando.io" , "nitya.sunkad@amd.com" Subject: Re: [PATCH net] ionic: remove WARN_ON to prevent panic_on_warn Message-ID: <20230628140612.4736ed58@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: <1b33f325-c104-8b0c-099f-f2d2e98fed66@amd.com> References: <20230628170050.21290-1-shannon.nelson@amd.com> <1b33f325-c104-8b0c-099f-f2d2e98fed66@amd.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Wed, 28 Jun 2023 11:26:18 -0700 Shannon Nelson wrote: > > This message could potentially use a bit more explanation since it > > doesn't look like you removed all the WARN_ONs in the driver, and > > it might help to explain why this particular WARN_ON was > > problematic. I don't think that would be worth a re-roll on its own > > though. > > There has been recent mention of not using WARNxxx macros because so > many folks have been setting panic_on_warn [1]. This is intended to > help mitigate the possibility of unnecessarily killing a machine when > we can adjust and continue. > [1]: > https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/2023060820-atom-doorstep-9442@gregkh/ > > I believe the only other WARNxxx in this driver is a WARN_ON_ONCE in > ionic_regs.h which can be addressed in a separate patch. > > Neither of these are ever expected to be hit, but also neither should > ever kill a machine. An explanation that this warning may in fact be hit and how in the commit message would be good.