[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1502905904.2042.159.camel@hpe.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 18:01:30 +0000
From: "Kani, Toshimitsu" <toshi.kani@....com>
To: "bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>
CC: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"rostedt@...dmis.org" <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
"mchehab@...nel.org" <mchehab@...nel.org>,
"rjw@...ysocki.net" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
"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 v2 4/7] ghes_edac: avoid multiple calls to dmi_walk()
On Wed, 2017-08-16 at 19:40 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 05:28:50PM +0000, Kani, Toshimitsu wrote:
> > Assuming this big spinlock works, yes, this addresses my concern
> > that
>
> You mean, lengthy locked section. We can always switch to on-stack
> buffers if there are issues or even to something more fancy like
> genpool.
Yes, I meant the lengthy locked section. I still think that multiple
mcis is a better approach for concurrency as it naturally addresses it.
But as long as edac func and error handlers are tolerant with this
spinlock and serialization, I am OK with that.
> > I will test the patch with an SCI when I got a chance. I won't be
> > able to test other notification types or race conditions, though.
>
> Thanks, here's the latest version with the atomic registration too.
Sure, I will test with this version.
Thanks,
-Toshi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists