[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170830170205.wf7q6hfcw4jhbpmu@pd.tnic>
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2017 19:02:06 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>
To: Sinan Kaya <okaya@...eaurora.org>
Cc: "Baicar, Tyler" <tbaicar@...eaurora.org>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>, rjw@...ysocki.net,
lenb@...nel.org, will.deacon@....com, james.morse@....com,
prarit@...hat.com, punit.agrawal@....com, shiju.jose@...wei.com,
andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Linux PCI <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] acpi: apei: call into AER handling regardless of severity
On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 11:31:06AM -0400, Sinan Kaya wrote:
> I see. We should probably try to do something only if GHES_SEV_CORRECTED or
> GHES_SEV_RECOVERABLE.
>
> If somebody wants to crash the system with GHES_SEV_PANIC, there is no point
> in doing additional work.
Makes sense.
Whatever we do, I'd like to have this all nicely documented *why* we're
doing the recovery policy we're doing.
> Sounds good. Do you still want to do PCIe recovery in the case of
> GHES_SEV_PANIC or if some FW returns GHES_SEV_NO?
So I read GHES_SEV_PANIC as: we should panic and stop any processing
whatsoever ASAP in order to avoid further error propagation. So doing
recovery there might *actually* be a bad idea.
GHES_SEV_NO would map to AER_CORRECTABLE and I think that would mean,
print the error to let the user know but no need to recover because no
harm was done.
I *think*.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
SUSE Linux GmbH, GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
--
Powered by blists - more mailing lists