[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <SN6PR12MB26392B440ED735C26AA2C678F80A0@SN6PR12MB2639.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Thu, 16 May 2019 17:09:11 +0000
From: "Ghannam, Yazen" <Yazen.Ghannam@....com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
CC: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>,
"linux-edac@...r.kernel.org" <linux-edac@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v3 5/6] x86/MCE: Save MCA control bits that get set in
hardware
> -----Original Message-----
> From: linux-edac-owner@...r.kernel.org <linux-edac-owner@...r.kernel.org> On Behalf Of Borislav Petkov
> Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2019 11:57 AM
> To: Ghannam, Yazen <Yazen.Ghannam@....com>
> Cc: Luck, Tony <tony.luck@...el.com>; linux-edac@...r.kernel.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; x86@...nel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/6] x86/MCE: Save MCA control bits that get set in hardware
>
>
> On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 04:14:14PM +0000, Ghannam, Yazen wrote:
> > I can put a vendor check on the read. Is that sufficient?
>
> Or we can drop this patch. Remind me again pls why do we need it?
>
So that the sysfs files show the control values that are set in the hardware. It seemed like this would be more helpful than showing all 0xF's.
But I'm okay with dropping this patch. Patch 6 in this set depends on this, so it'll need to be dropped also.
Should I send out another version of this set?
Thanks,
Yazen
Powered by blists - more mailing lists