linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 20/21] amd64_edac: add DRAM error injection logic using sysfs

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20977.9082.qm@web50109.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Date:	Wed, 29 Apr 2009 23:28:51 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Doug Thompson <norsk5@...oo.com>
To:	Borislav Petkov <borislav.petkov@....com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, greg@...ah.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
	hpa@...or.com, dougthompson@...ssion.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 20/21] amd64_edac: add DRAM error injection logic using sysfs


I believe I failed to reply to ALL and replied only to the sender

doug t

--- On Wed, 4/29/09, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:

> From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 20/21] amd64_edac: add DRAM error injection logic using sysfs
> To: "Borislav Petkov" <borislav.petkov@....com>
> Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, greg@...ah.com, tglx@...utronix.de, hpa@...or.com, dougthompson@...ssion.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
> Date: Wednesday, April 29, 2009, 12:17 PM
> 
> * Borislav Petkov <borislav.petkov@....com>
> wrote:
> 
> > From: Doug Thompson <dougthompson@...ssion.com>
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Doug Thompson <dougthompson@...ssion.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Borislav Petkov <borislav.petkov@....com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/edac/amd64_edac.c |  287
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  1 files changed, 287 insertions(+), 0
> deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/edac/amd64_edac.c
> b/drivers/edac/amd64_edac.c
> > index b1a7e8c..4d1076f 100644
> > --- a/drivers/edac/amd64_edac.c
> > +++ b/drivers/edac/amd64_edac.c
> > @@ -4621,3 +4621,290 @@ static ssize_t
> amd64_hole_show(struct mem_ctl_info *mci, char *data)
> >  
> >  #endif    /* DEBUG */
> >  
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_EDAC_AMD64_OPTERON_ERROR_INJECTION
> 
> this should be in a separate .c file under
> drivers/edac/amd64/. 
> 
> Introducing large #ifdef sections like that is not very
> clean. The 
> amd64_edac.c file is _way_ too large at more than 5000
> lines of 
> code.
> 
>     Ingo

If we broke this into a separate files, then there would be TWO (2) files: 1 for the source code of the routines and a 1 for the table entries which reference those routines. Is that then acceptable as well?

Same pattern applies to the DEBUG functions Info refers to in another thread:  2 separate files would be required as well.

2 files for Error Injection code
2 files for DEBUG controls
1 files for text mapping

and I assume all these would be included via an #include statement at their appropriate locations

thx

doug t

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/