[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <42d1d11d63f3453db61fad58a91e2ba5@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2021 20:44:41 +0000
From: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
CC: Zhaolong Zhang <zhangzl2013@....com>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"linux-edac@...r.kernel.org" <linux-edac@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] x86/mce: drop cpu_missing since we have more capable
mce_missing_cpus
> what do we do with the sysfs knob? It probably is an ABI:
>
> /sys/devices/system/machinecheck/machinecheck1/tolerant
> /sys/devices/system/machinecheck/machinecheck2/tolerant
$ git grep tolerant -- Documentation/ABI/
$
An undocumented ABI! Well, not documented with all the other sysfs bits.
It does appear in:
Documentation/x86/x86_64/machinecheck.rst
Of course, like a lot of documentation, it isn't accurate. It wasn't
updated to describe what happens with recoverable errors.
Final paragraph says:
Note this only makes a difference if the CPU allows recovery
from a machine check exception. Current x86 CPUs generally do not.
Recovery was first introduced in the Nehalem generation which ark.intel.com
says was launched in Q1'2010. So over a decade.
Choices:
1) Leave the file there, but remove the code that uses the value
2) Delete the file too
Option 1 doesn't break any scripts that look for the file, but may make
people shout louder when they find it no longer does anything.
Option 2 is the more honest approach.
-Tony
Powered by blists - more mailing lists