[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <bb5582286b13495b9d91e3f13b61cbd9@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2021 15:59:08 +0000
From: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
To: Shuai Xue <xueshuai@...ux.alibaba.com>
CC: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
"bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>,
"james.morse@....com" <james.morse@....com>,
"lenb@...nel.org" <lenb@...nel.org>,
"rjw@...ysocki.net" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
"zhangliguang@...ux.alibaba.com" <zhangliguang@...ux.alibaba.com>,
"zhuo.song@...ux.alibaba.com" <zhuo.song@...ux.alibaba.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v2] ACPI, APEI, EINJ: Relax platform response timeout to 1
second.
>> No, I don't. EINJ provides a hardware error injection mechanism to develop
>> and debug firmware code and hardware RAS feature. While we test on Arm
>> platform, it cannot meet the original timeout limit. Therefore, we send
>> this patch to relax the upper bound of timeout. In order to facilitate
>> other platforms to encounter the same problems, we expose timeout as a
>> configurable parameter in user space.
>
> What's your opinion about this interface?
I can't see a case where anyone would use it. So it is just useless fluff.
I say drop it from the next rev of the patch.
-Tony
Powered by blists - more mailing lists