[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190206163929.0000394a@huawei.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2019 16:39:29 +0000
From: Jonathan Cameron <jonathan.cameron@...wei.com>
To: Keith Busch <keith.busch@...el.com>
CC: <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"Rafael Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
"Dan Williams" <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv5 03/10] acpi/hmat: Parse and report heterogeneous
memory
...
> > > +
> > > + return 0;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static int __init hmat_parse_address_range(union acpi_subtable_headers *header,
> > > + const unsigned long end)
> > > +{
> > > + struct acpi_hmat_address_range *spa = (void *)header;
> > > +
> > > + if (spa->header.length != sizeof(*spa)) {
> > > + pr_debug("HMAT: Unexpected address range header length: %d\n",
> > > + spa->header.length);
> >
> > My gut feeling is that it's much more useful to make this always print rather
> > than debug. Same with other error paths above. Given the number of times
> > broken ACPI tables show up, it's nice to complain really loudly!
> >
> > Perhaps others prefer to not do so though so I'll defer to subsystem norms.
>
> Yeah, I demoted these to debug based on earlier feedback. We should
> still be operational even with broken HMAT, so I don't want to create
> unnecessary panic if its broken, but I agree something should be
> immediately noticable if the firmware tables are incorrect. Maybe like
> what bad_srat() provides.
Agreed. Something general like that would be great. Let's people know they
should turn debug on.
Thanks,
Jonathan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists