[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20141106185638.GH4318@pd.tnic>
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2014 19:56:38 +0100
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
Cc: Chen Yucong <slaoub@...il.com>,
"ak@...ux.intel.com" <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
"aravind.gopalakrishnan@....com" <aravind.gopalakrishnan@....com>,
"linux-edac@...r.kernel.org" <linux-edac@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2 v2] x86, mce, severity: extend the the mce_severity
On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 06:32:37PM +0000, Luck, Tony wrote:
> > Basically, this check is being done only for machine check exceptions
> > only.
>
> But you proposed setting excp by looking at mcg_status:
> > excp = ((m->mcg_status & MCG_STATUS_MCIP) ? EXCP_CONTEXT : NO_EXCP);
>
> Which makes the code rather self referential. If we actually did arrive in MCE handler
> with MCIP == 0 ... then your code would pretend that we'd arrived here from the
> poll code, and skip over the test for MCIP - so fail to report that MCIP wasn't set.
Is that ever possible - to have a discrepancy between the setting of
MCIP and where we call mce_severity()?
I'm under the assumption that at all times, when we get a MCE, MCIP will
be set. For example, mce_gather_info() reads MCG_STATUS before we call
mce_severity() in do_machine_check().
Or am I missing something?
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine.
--
--
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