[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <48944beb-4e29-05cc-857b-7698e3dbe89b@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2018 10:00:53 -0500
From: "Alex G." <mr.nuke.me@...il.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-edac@...r.kernel.org,
rjw@...ysocki.net, lenb@...nel.org, tony.luck@...el.com,
tbaicar@...eaurora.org, will.deacon@....com, james.morse@....com,
shiju.jose@...wei.com, zjzhang@...eaurora.org,
gengdongjiu@...wei.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
alex_gagniuc@...lteam.com, austin_bolen@...l.com,
shyam_iyer@...l.com, devel@...ica.org, mchehab@...nel.org,
robert.moore@...el.com, erik.schmauss@...el.com,
Yazen Ghannam <yazen.ghannam@....com>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 3/4] acpi: apei: Do not panic() when correctable
errors are marked as fatal.
On 04/25/2018 09:01 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 11:19:25PM -0500, Alex G. wrote:
>> That tells you what FFS said about the error.
>
> I betcha those status and command values have a human-readable counterparts.
>
> Btw, what do you abbreviate with "FFS"?
Firmware-first.
>> It's immediately obvious if there's a glaring FFS bug and if we get bogus
>> data. If you distrust firmware as much as I do, then you will find great
>> value in having such info in the logs. It's probably not too useful to a
>> casual user, but then neither is a majority of the system log.
>
> No no, you're missing the point - I *want* all data in the error log
> which helps debug a hardware issue. I just want it humanly readable so
> that I don't have to jot down the values and go scour the manuals to map
> what it actually means.
We could probably use more of the native AER print functions, but that's
beyond the scope of this patch. I tried something like this [1], but
have given up following the PCI maintainer's radio silence. I don't care
_that_ much about the log format.
[1] http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-pci/msg71422.html
>> You're missing the timing and assuming you will get the hotplug interrupt.
>> In this example, you have 22ms between the link down and presence detect
>> state change. This is a fairly fast removal.
>>
>> Hotplug dependencies aside (you can have the kernel run without PCIe hotplug
>> support), I don't think you want to just linger in NMI for dozens of
>> milliseconds waiting for presence detect confirmation.
>
> No, I don't mean that. I mean something like deferred processing:
Like the exact thing that this patch series implements? :)
> you
> get an error, you notice it is a device which supports physical removal
> so you exit the NMI handler and process the error in normal, process
> context which allows you to query the device and say, "Hey device, are
> you still there?"
Like the exact way the AER handler works?
> If it is not, you drop all the hw I/O errors reported for it.
Like the PCI error recovery mechanisms that AER invokes?
> Hmmm?
Hmmm
Powered by blists - more mailing lists