[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171116211509.4f4sjl2txkqesgtj@agluck-desk>
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2017 13:15:10 -0800
From: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
To: Xie XiuQi <xiexiuqi@...wei.com>
Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>, "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"linux-edac@...r.kernel.org" <linux-edac@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
chen wei <chenwei68@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/mce: add support SRAO reported via CMC check
On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 11:00:40AM +0800, Xie XiuQi wrote:
> How about this patch?
> + /*
> + * known AO MCACODs reported via MCE or CMC:
> + *
> + * SRAO could be signaled either via a machine check exception or
> + * CMCI with the corresponding bit S 1 or 0. So we don't need to
> + * check bit S for SRAO.
> + */
> + MCESEV(
> + AO, "Action optional: memory scrubbing error",
> + SER, MASK(MCI_STATUS_OVER|MCI_UC_AR|MCACOD_SCRUBMSK, MCI_STATUS_UC|MCACOD_SCRUB)
> + ),
> + MCESEV(
> + AO, "Action optional: last level cache writeback error",
> + SER, MASK(MCI_STATUS_OVER|MCI_UC_AR|MCACOD, MCI_STATUS_UC|MCACOD_L3WB)
> + ),
> +
Yes. This looks good.
Reviewed-by: Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>
-Tony
Powered by blists - more mailing lists