Re: [PATCH 00/11] x86: WARN() hackery

[Maxime Ripard <mripard@redhat.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2098 bytes --]

On Thu, Jul 03, 2025 at 03:47:12PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 03, 2025 at 03:40:01PM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > On Sat, Jun 07, 2025 at 11:42:24AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > Slightly less mad this time :-)
> > > 
> > > The primary purpose of all this is to get the WARN() printk() and
> > > __warn() calls into the same context. Notably the current state is that
> > > WARN() ends up doing printk() in-place, then takes an exception and has
> > > the exception do the __warn().
> > > 
> > > The problem with all this is the ONCE logic. Normal WARN_ON_ONCE()
> > > (without the printk) has the ONCE logic in the exception
> > > (__report_bug()). But because WARN() essentially results in two distinct
> > > actions (printk + trap) this cannot work.  With the result that
> > > additional ONCE logic is sprinkled around for each such site.
> > > 
> > > Current proposals look to make this worse by adding KUnit checks for all
> > > this, including regular WARN. Making the per-instance code overhead even
> > > worse.
> > > 
> > > As such, by moving the printk() into the exception, and having the
> > > exception (__report_bug() in fact) do everything, we get rid of the
> > > external ONCE logic and provide a cental place for additional conditions
> > > without need to litter all the instances.
> > 
> > Thanks a lot for working on that. What is the status of this patch? It
> > looks like Linus was happy with it, and I understood that you felt it
> > was a blocker for the kunit warning work we'd really like to get merged
> > at some point.
> 
> I talked to Mark Rutland about arm64 support, to see if the things I did
> are generic enough for other architectures to support, or if there's
> anything I need to change.
> 
> He said he was going to have a poke, but it appears he's not had time
> yet.
> 
> Once he's happy, I think we can move this forward. Obviously I have to
> rebase on top of the things Ingo stuck in meanwhile, but that shouldn't
> be too hard.

Ack, thanks for the update :)

Maxime

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 273 bytes --]