[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <SJ1PR11MB60835796448A4E04ACC1B968FC9D9@SJ1PR11MB6083.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date:   Tue, 2 Aug 2022 16:58:45 +0000
From:   "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
To:     Yazen Ghannam <yazen.ghannam@....com>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
CC:     "linux-edac@...r.kernel.org" <linux-edac@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
        "Smita.KoralahalliChannabasappa@....com" 
        <Smita.KoralahalliChannabasappa@....com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/3] x86/MCE, EDAC/mce_amd: Add support for new
 MCA_SYND{1,2} registers
> I ask because struct mce is UAPI. But I think this is just for /dev/mcelog,
> and this has been deprecated for a while. So on a related note, should
> /dev/mcelog be removed and struct mce moved out of UAPI? Then changes to
> struct mce won't affect user space, and we can just consider the mce trace
> event when reporting to user space.
Even though deprecated, mcelog still has users, so I don't think it should go away
yet.
-Tony
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
 
