[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170405172203.stnpfpvtm2afzkvk@pd.tnic>
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 19:22:04 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: "Ghannam, Yazen" <Yazen.Ghannam@....com>
Cc: "linux-edac@...r.kernel.org" <linux-edac@...r.kernel.org>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] x86/mce/AMD: Redo use of SMCA MCA_DE{STAT,ADDR}
registers
On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 05:06:19PM +0000, Ghannam, Yazen wrote:
> Checking if we have a valid deferred error. Since we call __log_error() on
> thresholding interrupts too we would need to tell it which handler is calling
> it to do the correct check. This is what we currently do.
That's why I suggested a __log_error_deferred() - a separate function
which deals with deferred errors.
> What do you mean " we don't have anything"? We check if we have a valid
> deferred error in is_deferred_error(). Otherwise, we don't log anything.
So the normal status MSR says whether we have a deferred error or not.
If it says we don't, then we have to look at the DE* MSRs, correct?
If yes, then do it exactly like this.
Not:
IF deferred:
log
ELSE IF SMCA:
IF deferred:
log
but:
IF deferred:
log_deferred:
log
IF cannot log from normal MSRs
log from DE
Why are we even wasting time with this?!
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists