[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1502741290.2042.147.camel@hpe.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 20:17:54 +0000
From: "Kani, Toshimitsu" <toshi.kani@....com>
To: "bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>
CC: "linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
"lenb@...nel.org" <lenb@...nel.org>,
"mchehab@...nel.org" <mchehab@...nel.org>,
"tony.luck@...el.com" <tony.luck@...el.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-edac@...r.kernel.org" <linux-edac@...r.kernel.org>,
"rjw@...ysocki.net" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/7] ghes_edac: avoid multiple calls to dmi_walk()
On Mon, 2017-08-14 at 21:34 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 07:02:15PM +0000, Kani, Toshimitsu wrote:
> > I do not know how likely we see such case, but the code should be
> > written according to the spec.
>
> Well, then you'll have to make ghes_edac_report_mem_error()
> reentrant. Which doesn't look that hard as the only thing it really
> needs from struct ghes_edac_pvt are those string buffers. I guess you
> can try to do the simplest thing first and allocate them on the
> stack.
ghes_edac_report_mem_error() is reentrant as it is now. I think the
current code design of allocating mci & ghes_edac_pvt for each GHES
source entry makes sense. edac_raw_mc_handle_error() also has the same
expectation that the call is serialized per mci.
Thanks,
-Toshi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists