[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201123171910.GF15044@zn.tnic>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2020 18:19:10 +0100
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: "Paoloni, Gabriele" <gabriele.paoloni@...el.com>
Cc: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>, "hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
"linux-edac@...r.kernel.org" <linux-edac@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-safety@...ts.elisa.tech" <linux-safety@...ts.elisa.tech>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] x86/mce: move the mce_panic() call and kill_it
assignments at the right places
On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 05:06:31PM +0000, Paoloni, Gabriele wrote:
> From my understanding no_way_out and kill_it are different in principles:
> no_way_out is telling that an error occurred 'somewhere' in some CPU bank
> that requires the system to panic (e.g. PCC=1); kill_it is saying that the execution
> cannot be restarted where it left for the local CPU and hence we need to find
> an alternative solution as part of the recovery action. In practice it seems to
> me that kill_it is used to replace kill_me_maybe with kill_me_now in case
> the exception happened in user mode.
Bah, I got confused, sorry about that - you're right.
Btw, that kill_it should probably be called "kill_current_task" or so to
make it more clear.
Thx.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
Powered by blists - more mailing lists