[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190322193228.GN12472@zn.tnic>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2019 20:32:28 +0100
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: "Ghannam, Yazen" <Yazen.Ghannam@....com>
Cc: "linux-edac@...r.kernel.org" <linux-edac@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"tony.luck@...el.com" <tony.luck@...el.com>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"rafal@...ecki.pl" <rafal@...ecki.pl>,
"clemej@...il.com" <clemej@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] x86/MCE/AMD: Don't report L1 BTB MCA errors on
some Family 17h models
On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 07:24:01PM +0000, Ghannam, Yazen wrote:
> Generally, the model groups share the same hardware design and so the
> same quirks. So I'm thinking that it'd be more efficient to have a
> filter function that targets a specific group of models rather than
> one that checks all known quirks on all models.
Or simply start with a amd_filter_mce() function and when it grows big
and unwieldy, only *then* start thinking about splitting it into models
and families. For now, you're fine with a single AMD-specific function.
> Most of the quirks are dealt with at init time, but this needs be to
> done during run time for each MCE that is logged. So I didn't want to
> add unnecessary checks to the MCE handlers. We have quirk_no_way_out()
> that does something similar.
I don't think a couple of instructions checking vendor and family would
be at all noticeable so let's start simple.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists