[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170719162204.GE16124@nazgul.tnic>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 18:22:04 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: "Kani, Toshimitsu" <toshi.kani@....com>
Cc: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"mchehab@...nel.org" <mchehab@...nel.org>,
"rjw@...ysocki.net" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
"srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com"
<srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
"tony.luck@...el.com" <tony.luck@...el.com>,
"lenb@...nel.org" <lenb@...nel.org>,
"linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-edac@...r.kernel.org" <linux-edac@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] ghes_edac: add platform check to enable ghes_edac
On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 04:10:07PM +0000, Kani, Toshimitsu wrote:
> I do prefer to avoid any white / black listing. But I do not see how
> it solves the buggy DMI/SMBIOS info as an example of firmware bugs we
> may have to deal with.
So how do you want to deal with this?
Maintain an evergrowing whitelist of platforms which are OK and then the
moment a new platform comes along, you send a patch to add it to that
whitelist?
I'm sure you can see the problems with that approach.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.
--
Powered by blists - more mailing lists