Thread (7 messages) 7 messages, 3 authors, 2014-12-27

Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: Stop BUGing the system

From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Date: 2014-12-18 02:08:44
Also in: lkml

On 17 December 2014 at 21:21, Nishanth Menon [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
CPUFRreq subsystem is not a system catastrophic failure point.
Failures in these cases DONOT need complete system shutdown with BUG.
just refuse to let cpufreq function should be good enough.

Signed-off-by: Nishanth Menon <nm@ti.com>
---
 drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c |   17 +++++++++++++----
 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
index a09a29c..a5aa2fa 100644
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
@@ -281,7 +281,10 @@ static inline void adjust_jiffies(unsigned long val, struct cpufreq_freqs *ci)
 static void __cpufreq_notify_transition(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
                struct cpufreq_freqs *freqs, unsigned int state)
 {
-       BUG_ON(irqs_disabled());
+       if (irqs_disabled()) {
+               WARN(1, "IRQs disabled!\n");
+               return;
+       }
What about:
+               if (WARN(irqs_disabled(), "IRQs disabled!\n")
+                       return;
Same for the last change as well..
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
        if (cpufreq_disabled())
                return;
@@ -1253,9 +1256,12 @@ static int __cpufreq_add_dev(struct device *dev, struct subsys_interface *sif)
                        /*
                         * Reaching here after boot in a few seconds may not
                         * mean that system will remain stable at "unknown"
-                        * frequency for longer duration. Hence, a BUG_ON().
+                        * frequency for longer duration. Hence, a WARN().
                         */
-                       BUG_ON(ret);
+                       if (ret) {
+                               WARN(1, "SYSTEM operating at invalid freq %u", policy->cur);
+                               goto err_out_unregister;
+                       }
And I still don't agree for this one. We shouldn't keep on working on a
potentially unstable frequency.
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help