[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <55102110.4040106@amd.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2015 09:20:00 -0500
From: Aravind Gopalakrishnan <aravind.gopalakrishnan@....com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
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 3/21/2015 1:10 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> 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.
Ah. Ok, I misunderstood. Will clear this.
> 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...
>
Ok, I'll do that and resend.
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