[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20111214165459.GB32305@elte.hu>
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 17:55:00 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...64.org>
Cc: Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>,
Hidetoshi Seto <seto.hidetoshi@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] HWPOISON: clean up memory_failure() vs.
__memory_failure()
* Borislav Petkov <bp@...64.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 08:47:49AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > -/* dummy to break dependency. actual code is in mm/memory-failure.c */
> > > -void __attribute__((weak)) memory_failure(unsigned long pfn, int vector)
> > > +#ifndef CONFIG_MEMORY_FAILURE
> > > +int memory_failure(unsigned long pfn, int vector, int flags)
> > > {
> > > printk(KERN_ERR "Action optional memory failure at %lx ignored\n", pfn);
> >
> > Btw., while at it, could we phrase this message in a more
> > obvious way to users, such as 'Non-fatal memory failure at
> > %lx ignored'?
>
> Yeah, that's might not be as correct as we want it to be. AO
> means it is an uncorrectable error, i.e. it will become fatal
> if we'd consumed it, but it isn't that now because we just saw
> it passing by in the cacheline...
>
> Maybe "Fatal, unconsumed error ignored..."
There's also the distinction that tells us which context is
affected by an error: the currently executing task/mm, or some
other one.
So you can keep the terminology i guess lacking a better
alternative, i just wanted to point out that it's likely
confusing to users.
Thanks,
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists