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 vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1FBCC433FE for ; Thu, 10 Nov 2022 07:54:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S232791AbiKJHyY (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Nov 2022 02:54:24 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:59918 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S232481AbiKJHyX (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Nov 2022 02:54:23 -0500 Received: from mail-wr1-x430.google.com (mail-wr1-x430.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::430]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 979B2631D for ; Wed, 9 Nov 2022 23:54:22 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wr1-x430.google.com with SMTP id z14so1035351wrn.7 for ; Wed, 09 Nov 2022 23:54:22 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=resnulli-us.20210112.gappssmtp.com; s=20210112; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=j83EA1TAQEaL6GbH+V4RzzvEapdXttc/TC/2CKxHp/A=; b=L7CpkoqWm0HIX8rB2P0Z7w6otNsPf1zhWkuZnq6M8HZX3sNxgftYT+GQ3G24U18Zwo 7LGuXGd0BLsAsvys9zTlPzodVK/QSUINyYmmvyhnakFgRYzhKo5PAQVHQRpyz9Sk4X3L VEFG7XlLPMaUbKsFfbRxEEHGAQ18C48T7qc21/8oIFaFEXtLTAMeXDG1aqm3CnHi0ygc pM8UPbQDvVgHGo9vbhMZM5lbPHLVaJ3G4itwQ67oEN6vWSKYIDq+vTyDzLnuEs8zZots F3GTkwLYzXHnP5Z2iufl1fEKesdIIm817Vp3thQ49n6mOLnvDI2aH0YpqdtsAReeCWL+ ddrA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=j83EA1TAQEaL6GbH+V4RzzvEapdXttc/TC/2CKxHp/A=; b=suVzfQpEDdaMGNB+9uu0Ui6BH0M7XMxAW4Y/w/b3nkwTtQlTcmoR+ERAzoHqNg04g3 g1S7ek7Aq1enCbDb14X4qh7JkSeSJ3qfLd8wqWyCHA2h2JIJH6XD2z5nQE39zUlm+Oyz eydBsV8NWXPJUfJPNjVpt2jKkWbrsGC1MwFq7Cg6no9ZzBAK1UdspDMbdx5z8E9LmbxC nhTdXnss1rZphi5W65+1cYMUWPu9nG5e+oGdjRSTz2Brar7MOmyS3on62nMqOC8dGc3K CX6MnynrPt7wD7lTXO2lHW4rJlOsFCawluDYCIPp82l3/hl6d14ZYLZB89ieuPDe4QgX AYYw== X-Gm-Message-State: ACrzQf1QS8AaGLrb3PjLRL1OT0t5hyFNGpD04d3JxRuqVrBvkdYeZrOp nH12CfcqXZiaqFUL7oVJremjmdDRnATRgurD X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMsMyM6uD4s7+o+IlokFwvGKU+w0eHDHCk9qc1XODGEdpu5nM8dZndfCl7FlKso8niMoZgVYWBLTRA== X-Received: by 2002:a5d:6145:0:b0:236:a948:9e35 with SMTP id y5-20020a5d6145000000b00236a9489e35mr39526351wrt.185.1668066861173; Wed, 09 Nov 2022 23:54:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (host-213-179-129-39.customer.m-online.net. [213.179.129.39]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id j7-20020a05600c190700b003b47e8a5d22sm4628519wmq.23.2022.11.09.23.54.20 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 09 Nov 2022 23:54:20 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2022 08:54:19 +0100 From: Jiri Pirko To: Jakub Kicinski Cc: Eric Dumazet , Ido Schimmel , netdev@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, pabeni@redhat.com, bigeasy@linutronix.de, imagedong@tencent.com, kuniyu@amazon.com, petrm@nvidia.com Subject: Re: [patch net-next v2 3/3] net: devlink: add WARN_ON to check return value of unregister_netdevice_notifier_net() call Message-ID: References: <20221108132208.938676-1-jiri@resnulli.us> <20221108132208.938676-4-jiri@resnulli.us> <20221109134536.447890fb@kernel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20221109134536.447890fb@kernel.org> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org Wed, Nov 09, 2022 at 10:45:36PM CET, kuba@kernel.org wrote: >On Wed, 9 Nov 2022 08:26:10 -0800 Eric Dumazet wrote: >> > On Tue, Nov 08, 2022 at 02:22:08PM +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote: >> > > From: Jiri Pirko >> > > >> > > As the return value is not 0 only in case there is no such notifier >> > > block registered, add a WARN_ON() to yell about it. >> > > >> > > Suggested-by: Ido Schimmel >> > > Signed-off-by: Jiri Pirko >> > >> > Reviewed-by: Ido Schimmel >> >> Please consider WARN_ON_ONCE(), or DEBUG_NET_WARN_ON_ONCE() > >Do you have any general guidance on when to pick WARN() vs WARN_ONCE()? >Or should we always prefer _ONCE() going forward? Good question. If so, it should be documented or spotted by checkpatch. > >Let me take the first 2 in, to lower the syzbot volume.