[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e50b7673-a441-3a6b-cf75-c267881c1a92@codeaurora.org>
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 09:54:09 -0700
From: "Baicar, Tyler" <tbaicar@...eaurora.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: christoffer.dall@...aro.org, marc.zyngier@....com,
pbonzini@...hat.com, rkrcmar@...hat.com, linux@...linux.org.uk,
catalin.marinas@....com, will.deacon@....com, rjw@...ysocki.net,
lenb@...nel.org, matt@...eblueprint.co.uk, robert.moore@...el.com,
lv.zheng@...el.com, nkaje@...eaurora.org, zjzhang@...eaurora.org,
mark.rutland@....com, james.morse@....com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, eun.taik.lee@...sung.com,
sandeepa.s.prabhu@...il.com, labbott@...hat.com,
shijie.huang@....com, rruigrok@...eaurora.org,
paul.gortmaker@...driver.com, tn@...ihalf.com, fu.wei@...aro.org,
bristot@...hat.com, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
linux-efi@...r.kernel.org, devel@...ica.org,
Suzuki.Poulose@....com, punit.agrawal@....com, astone@...hat.com,
harba@...eaurora.org, hanjun.guo@...aro.org, john.garry@...wei.com,
shiju.jose@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V8 08/10] ras: acpi / apei: generate trace event for
unrecognized CPER section
On 2/15/2017 8:52 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Feb 2017 10:16:51 -0700
> Tyler Baicar <tbaicar@...eaurora.org> wrote:
>
>> @@ -452,11 +454,21 @@ static void ghes_do_proc(struct ghes *ghes,
>> {
>> int sev, sec_sev;
>> struct acpi_hest_generic_data *gdata;
>> + uuid_le sec_type;
>> + uuid_le *fru_id = &NULL_UUID_LE;
>> + char *fru_text = "";
>>
>> sev = ghes_severity(estatus->error_severity);
>> apei_estatus_for_each_section(estatus, gdata) {
>> sec_sev = ghes_severity(gdata->error_severity);
>> - if (!uuid_le_cmp(*(uuid_le *)gdata->section_type,
>> + sec_type = *(uuid_le *)gdata->section_type;
>> +
>> + if (gdata->validation_bits & CPER_SEC_VALID_FRU_ID)
>> + fru_id = (uuid_le *)gdata->fru_id;
>> + if (gdata->validation_bits & CPER_SEC_VALID_FRU_TEXT)
>> + fru_text = gdata->fru_text;
>> +
>> + if (!uuid_le_cmp(sec_type,
>> CPER_SEC_PLATFORM_MEM)) {
>> struct cper_sec_mem_err *mem_err;
>>
>> @@ -467,7 +479,7 @@ static void ghes_do_proc(struct ghes *ghes,
>> ghes_handle_memory_failure(gdata, sev);
>> }
>> #ifdef CONFIG_ACPI_APEI_PCIEAER
>> - else if (!uuid_le_cmp(*(uuid_le *)gdata->section_type,
>> + else if (!uuid_le_cmp(sec_type,
>> CPER_SEC_PCIE)) {
>> struct cper_sec_pcie *pcie_err;
>>
>> @@ -500,6 +512,12 @@ static void ghes_do_proc(struct ghes *ghes,
>>
>> }
>> #endif
>> + else {
> As an optimization, you can add:
>
> else if (trace_unknown_sec_event_enabled()) {
>
> instead, as then this wont be called unless the tracepoint is
> activated. Will keep the logic from doing anything with
> acpi_hest_generic_data_payload().
>
> Note, that trace_*_enabled() is activated via a jump_label, thus
> there's no branches involved.
>
> -- Steve
Hello Steve,
In v9 I currently have this and the ARM trace event from this series
both wrapped in an
ifdef verifying that CONFIG_RAS is enabled. This resolves the kbuild
failures and
will have this code compiled out when that config isn't enabled. Do you
think I
should use the ifdef or use these *_enabled() functions?
Thanks,
Tyler
>> + void *unknown_err = acpi_hest_generic_data_payload(gdata);
>> + trace_unknown_sec_event(&sec_type,
>> + fru_id, fru_text, sec_sev,
>> + unknown_err, gdata->error_data_length);
>> + }
>> }
>> }
>>
>>
--
Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies, Inc. as an affiliate of Qualcomm Technologies, Inc.
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists