[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180522145426.GG5512@pd.tnic>
Date: Tue, 22 May 2018 16:54:26 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: "Alex G." <mr.nuke.me@...il.com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>, alex_gagniuc@...lteam.com,
austin_bolen@...l.com, shyam_iyer@...l.com,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Tyler Baicar <tbaicar@...eaurora.org>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
Shiju Jose <shiju.jose@...wei.com>,
"Jonathan (Zhixiong) Zhang" <zjzhang@...eaurora.org>,
Dongjiu Geng <gengdongjiu@...wei.com>,
ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/2] acpi: apei: Rename ghes_severity() to
ghes_cper_severity()
On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 09:39:15AM -0500, Alex G. wrote:
> No, the problem is with the current approach, not with mine. The problem
> is trying to handle the error outside of the existing handler. That's a
> no-no, IMO.
Let me save you some time: until you come up with a proper solution for
*all* PCIe errors so that the kernel can correctly decide what to do for
each error based on its actual severity, consider this NAKed.
I don't care about outside or inside of the handler - this thing needs
to be done properly and not just to serve your particular use case of
abrupt removal of devices causing PCIe errors, and punish the rest.
I especially don't want to have the case where a PCIe error is *really*
fatal and then we noodle in some handlers debating about the severity
because it got marked as recoverable intermittently and end up causing
data corruption on the storage device. Here's a real no-no for ya.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists