From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sipsolutions.net (s3.sipsolutions.net [168.119.38.16]) (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 2A8F114A4D6 for ; Fri, 5 Jul 2024 12:39:15 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=168.119.38.16 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1720183157; cv=none; b=upmsWqIi8CPcwmljjWdgUIYh9BAFP0rEg2c9sypBdM/IPmNOkR7J+Kkb2u53dxtEpocgH1Cn8UlKvbi704Ci+e4r1oQcVjHmj2pclhbA83hNEshkY8ttUYTT78XNklbuwzpdjVE1vto0ERFM/DGPwxAkBL1PNVQSi37OCfbfDGE= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1720183157; c=relaxed/simple; bh=tHnuoSRBgTcDZAChYCQ80oP8IRIcP8sWMJoLXFlrdpY=; h=Message-ID:Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References: Content-Type:MIME-Version; b=i3e4CnhsNIQxDdx/fcsdrc3Y6NeVeGAQpfq1xb0hgWYzgj60Abi2OXPAWqy/qSKk/2b8Ly9dybEGYcT4zzsmA8giLRdeO96xKsQZUdN6Ar6BORfUkPuKaz0+05Qhn6FHBrjDmN2ZUZcy9KyWfZPkU/Tvdb12AqBxO+rYQk6WCys= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=sipsolutions.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=sipsolutions.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sipsolutions.net header.i=@sipsolutions.net header.b=wuP2hoIB; arc=none smtp.client-ip=168.119.38.16 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=sipsolutions.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=sipsolutions.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sipsolutions.net header.i=@sipsolutions.net header.b="wuP2hoIB" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sipsolutions.net; s=mail; h=MIME-Version:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type:References:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:To:From:Subject:Message-ID:Sender :Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-To: Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID; bh=vdrKZBGhdtKLqEE4ka46r2w3LqV5jHzdvqJWhYctCBA=; t=1720183156; x=1721392756; b=wuP2hoIB2yWN9apDsuEpXRnuRg/LzTxcdkNfvdSF/VBeHmC KRLDBxuwORXUSyjMTzYQHg3VY21AkZ+42BvN6l7ldU384Y/kncxDGYKMyg8qdzEabcdnAPO10YACL ahJKPp4S5+MRm46uN9UTTu4e4qouzQiMuj39Zrgve6l64iteMV20p411N3rMM4iXrAuon4oixSIjP NwtgMyn9YrYeji81YHYVpo5xBtmgZ3oo0HFQrSoa6wziHBWvOp3WrDlG/luxwyTTwr+PNVyHyC2Q7 TYAK9bnsOSkMAh9S6cCXFUwkC45m9ZADOJSpfMiWCR34cEbYidhVPzSxMXqq2tQQ==; Received: by sipsolutions.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_X25519__RSA_PSS_RSAE_SHA256__AES_256_GCM:256) (Exim 4.97) (envelope-from ) id 1sPiDV-0000000GNcv-1X2z; Fri, 05 Jul 2024 14:39:09 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: page_pool: fix warning code From: Johannes Berg To: Alexander Lobakin Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, Jesper Dangaard Brouer , Ilias Apalodimas , "David S. Miller" , Eric Dumazet , Jakub Kicinski , Paolo Abeni , Yunsheng Lin Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2024 14:39:08 +0200 In-Reply-To: <228b8f6a-55a8-4e8b-85de-baf7593cf2c9@intel.com> References: <20240705134221.2f4de205caa1.I28496dc0f2ced580282d1fb892048017c4491e21@changeid> <50291617-0872-4ba9-8ca5-329597a0eff5@intel.com> <228b8f6a-55a8-4e8b-85de-baf7593cf2c9@intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable User-Agent: Evolution 3.52.3 (3.52.3-1.fc40) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-malware-bazaar: not-scanned On Fri, 2024-07-05 at 14:37 +0200, Alexander Lobakin wrote: > From: Johannes Berg > Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2024 14:33:31 +0200 >=20 > > On Fri, 2024-07-05 at 14:32 +0200, Alexander Lobakin wrote: > > > From: Johannes Berg > > > Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2024 13:42:06 +0200 > > >=20 > > > > From: Johannes Berg > > > >=20 > > > > WARN_ON_ONCE("string") doesn't really do what appears to > > > > be intended, so fix that. > > > >=20 > > > > Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg > > >=20 > > > "Fixes:" tag? > >=20 > > There keep being discussions around this so I have no idea what's the > > guideline-du-jour ... It changes the code but it's not really an issue? >=20 > Hmm, it's an incorrect usage of WARN_ON() (a string is passed instead of > a warning condition), Well, yes, but the intent was clearly to unconditionally trigger a warning with a message, and the only thing getting lost is the message; if you look up the warning in the code you still see it. But anyway, I don't care. The tag would be Fixes: 90de47f020db ("page_pool: fragment API support for 32-bit arch with = 64-bit DMA") if anyone wants it :) johannes