[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150321061042.GA27221@pd.tnic>
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2015 07:10:42 +0100
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Aravind Gopalakrishnan <aravind.gopalakrishnan@....com>
Cc: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
"slaoub@...il.com" <slaoub@...il.com>,
"luto@...capital.net" <luto@...capital.net>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-edac@...r.kernel.org" <linux-edac@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 2/2] x86, mce, severities: Define mce_severity
function pointer
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 09:35:26PM -0500, Aravind Gopalakrishnan wrote:
> Other function pointers in the mce code like unexpected_machine_check
> and default_threshold_interrupt are assigned to the respective
> function pointers when they are defined.
The "WTF?!" would still fire and we don't want that.
Also, I'm not sure about returning MCE_PANIC_SEVERITY by default.
I mean, the code for !(Intel || AMD) has worked just fine with the
original severities, i.e., mce_severity_intel() now.
So maybe we should assign mce_severity_intel() on static init of the
mce_severity pointer and override it only on AMD...
This keeps the old behaviour for other machines, in the manner of
letting sleeping dogs lie...
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.
--
--
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