[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200610171912.GB1474@agluck-desk2.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2020 10:19:12 -0700
From: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
To: Zhenzhong Duan <zhenzhong.duan@...il.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-edac@...r.kernel.org,
bp@...en8.de, mchehab@...nel.org, james.morse@....com,
rrichter@...vell.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] EDAC/mc: call edac_inc_ue_error() before panic
On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 02:58:46PM +0800, Zhenzhong Duan wrote:
> By calling edac_inc_ue_error() before panic, we get a correct UE error
> count for core dump analysis.
Looks accurate, and I'll add the patch to be applied. But I wonder
how big a problem it is. Isn't most of the information deriveable
from the panic message?
>
> Signed-off-by: Zhenzhong Duan <zhenzhong.duan@...il.com>
> ---
> drivers/edac/edac_mc.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/edac/edac_mc.c b/drivers/edac/edac_mc.c
> index 75ede27..c1f23c2 100644
> --- a/drivers/edac/edac_mc.c
> +++ b/drivers/edac/edac_mc.c
> @@ -1011,6 +1011,8 @@ static void edac_ue_error(struct edac_raw_error_desc *e)
> e->other_detail);
> }
>
> + edac_inc_ue_error(e);
> +
> if (edac_mc_get_panic_on_ue()) {
> panic("UE %s%son %s (%s page:0x%lx offset:0x%lx grain:%ld%s%s)\n",
> e->msg,
> @@ -1020,8 +1022,6 @@ static void edac_ue_error(struct edac_raw_error_desc *e)
> *e->other_detail ? " - " : "",
> e->other_detail);
> }
> -
> - edac_inc_ue_error(e);
> }
>
> static void edac_inc_csrow(struct edac_raw_error_desc *e, int row, int chan)
> --
> 1.8.3.1
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists