[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <54614455.7070700@amd.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 17:03:49 -0600
From: Aravind Gopalakrishnan <aravind.gopalakrishnan@....com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
CC: Chen Yucong <slaoub@...il.com>, <tony.luck@...el.com>,
<ak@...ux.intel.com>, <linux-edac@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] x86, mce, severity: extend the the mce_severity
mechanism to handle UCNA/DEFERRED error
On 11/10/2014 4:17 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 04:06:00PM -0600, Aravind Gopalakrishnan wrote:
>>> + MCESEV(
>>> + DEFERRED, "Deferred error",
>>> + NOSER, MASK(MCI_STATUS_UC|MCI_STATUS_DEFERRED|MCI_STATUS_POISON, MCI_STATUS_DEFERRED)
>>> ),
>> We don't need to have MCI_STATUS_POISON in the MASK() here as a deferred
>> error is indicated by a {UC=0, Deferred = 1}
>> (Older docs might be unclear on that..)
> Well, I think that's ok because the MASK() macro actually makes the
> check do:
>
> look at bits MCI_STATUS_UC|MCI_STATUS_DEFERRED|MCI_STATUS_POISON and of
> them three MCI_STATUS_DEFERRED has to be the only one set.
>
> And that makes sense - we want deferred errors where we didn't attempt
> to consume poisoned data (which is signalled by MCI_STATUS_POISON)....
Yeah, makes sense.
Reviewed-by: Aravind Gopalakrishnan <Aravind.Gopalakrishnan@....com>
Thanks,
-Aravind.
--
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