[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <SN6PR12MB26392D6BD4846C7BE25431FFF8A10@SN6PR12MB2639.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2019 15:05:20 +0000
From: "Ghannam, Yazen" <Yazen.Ghannam@....com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
CC: Adam Borowski <kilobyte@...band.pl>,
"linux-edac@...r.kernel.org" <linux-edac@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v3 0/8] AMD64 EDAC fixes
> -----Original Message-----
> From: linux-edac-owner@...r.kernel.org <linux-edac-owner@...r.kernel.org> On Behalf Of Borislav Petkov
> Sent: Monday, August 26, 2019 9:59 AM
> To: Ghannam, Yazen <Yazen.Ghannam@....com>
> Cc: Adam Borowski <kilobyte@...band.pl>; linux-edac@...r.kernel.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/8] AMD64 EDAC fixes
>
> On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 02:19:18PM +0000, Ghannam, Yazen wrote:
> > I was tracking down the failure with ECC disabled, and that seems to be it.
> >
> > So I think we should return 0 "if (!edac_has_mcs())", because we'd only get
> > there if ECC is disabled on all nodes and there wasn't some other initialization
> > error.
> >
> > I'll send a patch for this soon.
> >
> > Adam, would you mind testing this patch?
>
> You can't return 0 when ECC is disabled on all nodes because then the
> driver remains loaded without driving anything. That silly userspace
> needs to understand that ENODEV means "stop trying to load this driver".
>
Yes, you're right.
I'll try and track down the interaction here between userspace and the module.
Please let me know if you have any suggestions.
Thanks,
Yazen
Powered by blists - more mailing lists