[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3908561D78D1C84285E8C5FCA982C28F32ADCEE3@ORSMSX114.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 18:52:00 +0000
From: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Xie XiuQi <xiexiuqi@...wei.com>
CC: "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>, "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"linux-edac@...r.kernel.org" <linux-edac@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"zhangliguang@...wei.com" <zhangliguang@...wei.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] x86/mce: fix failed to reenable cmci when swiching to
interrupt mode
> Well, ok, but do it differently, please: rename
> cmci_storm_disable_banks() to cmci_storm_switch_banks(bool on) which
> turns them on and off. Unless Tony has a better suggestion...
I like the boolean argument ... but not the "switch_banks" name. It sounds more
like we are juggling between banks, rather than setting a switch/flag in a bank.
How does "cmci_storm_set_cmci(bool on)" sound? Too many "cmci" in one name?
-Tony
Powered by blists - more mailing lists