[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170418162822.GA2358@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 09:28:22 -0700
From: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
"Verma, Vishal L" <vishal.l.verma@...el.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org" <linux-nvdimm@...1.01.org>,
"ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com" <ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] x86, mce: change the mce notifier to 'blocking' from
'atomic'
On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 02:12:16PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 01:31:59PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > @@ -321,18 +321,8 @@ static void __print_mce(struct mce *m)
> >
> > static void print_mce(struct mce *m)
> > {
> > - int ret = 0;
> > -
> > __print_mce(m);
> > -
> > - /*
> > - * Print out human-readable details about the MCE error,
> > - * (if the CPU has an implementation for that)
> > - */
> > - ret = atomic_notifier_call_chain(&x86_mce_decoder_chain, 0, m);
> > - if (ret == NOTIFY_STOP)
> > - return;
> > -
> > + mce_log(m);
>
> Actually, we don't need that call here because do_machine_check()
> already does it.
Yes. Don't add mce_log(m) here. We've already done it.
With this change:
Acked-by: Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>
-Tony
Powered by blists - more mailing lists