[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3908561D78D1C84285E8C5FCA982C28F31CB8F53@ORSMSX106.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2013 18:05:02 +0000
From: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
CC: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <m.chehab@...sung.com>,
"bhelgaas@...gle.com" <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
"rostedt@...dmis.org" <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
"rjw@...k.pl" <rjw@...k.pl>,
"lance.ortiz@...com" <lance.ortiz@...com>,
"linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 3/3] mce: acpi/apei: trace: Enable ghes memory error
trace event
> Why would you need dmesg if you get your hw errors over the tracepoint?
Redundancy is a good thing when talking about mission critical systems. dmesg
may be feeding to a serial console to be logged and analysed on another system.
The tracepoint data goes to a process on the system experiencing the errors. If the
errors are serious (or a precursor to something serious) that process may never get
the chance to save the log.
-Tony
Powered by blists - more mailing lists