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-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 30 Apr 2009 10:34:11 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Doug Thompson <norsk5@...oo.com>
Cc:	Borislav Petkov <borislav.petkov@....com>,
	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


* Doug Thompson <norsk5@...oo.com> wrote:

> 
> 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

A Makefile might be more natural i think - that way the #ifdef turns 
into a makefile rule?

	Ingo
--
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/