[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1288083163.2862.592.camel@yhuang-dev>
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 16:52:43 +0800
From: Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
"linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
Borislav Petkov <petkovbb@...glemail.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...hat.com>,
"Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [NAK] Re: [PATCH -v2 9/9] ACPI, APEI, Generic Hardware Error
Source POLL/IRQ/NMI notification type support
Hi, Thomas,
On Tue, 2010-10-26 at 12:53 +0800, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> B1;2401;0cLen,
>
> On Mon, 25 Oct 2010, Len Brown wrote:
>
> > > NAKed-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
> >
> > Everybody knows that Linux has a lot to learn about RAS.
> >
> > I think to catch up, we need to play to Linux's strengths
> > of continuous improvement. If we halt patches in this area
> > then we could wait forever for the "perfect design".
>
> it's not about perfect design. It's about creating new user space
> ABIs. The patches introduce another error reporting user space ABI
> with an ad hoc "fits the needs" design.
>
> This is my major point of objection.
>
> I agree that Linux needs improvement on the RAS side, but does this
> lack of features justify a new user space ABI which is totally
> disconnected to existing RAS facilities ?
>
> No, it does not. It's not our problem that Intel wasted time on
> creating another character device driver to report errors to user
> space. The time spent to do so would have been sufficient to do a
> proper integration into the existing infrastructure.
>
> I would not care at all if these patches would just introduce some
> weird in kernel interfaces as we can clean that up at will. But
> introducing a new user space ABI is setting the disconnect of RAS
> related facilities into stone.
>
> From Kconfig:
>
> EDAC is designed to report errors in the core system.
> These are low-level errors that are reported in the CPU or
> supporting chipset or other subsystems:
> memory errors, cache errors, PCI errors, thermal throttling, etc..
> If unsure, select 'Y'.
>
> So please explain why your error reporting is so different from the
> above that it justifies a separate facility. And you better come up
> with a real good explanation other than we looked at EDAC and it did
> not fit our needs.
As far as I know, EDAC guys plan to use some other "perfect interface"
in the future. So I think the current state is really waiting for the
"perfect design".
Best Regards,
Huang Ying
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists