linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/4] acpi/ghes, cxl: Create a common CXL struct to handle different CXL CPER records

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2024 12:35:52 -0800
From: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>
To: Smita Koralahalli <Smita.KoralahalliChannabasappa@....com>, Ira Weiny
	<ira.weiny@...el.com>, <linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org>
CC: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>, Alison Schofield
	<alison.schofield@...el.com>, Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@...el.com>, "Dan
 Williams" <dan.j.williams@...el.com>, Jonathan Cameron
	<Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>, Yazen Ghannam <yazen.ghannam@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] acpi/ghes, cxl: Create a common CXL struct to handle
 different CXL CPER records

Smita Koralahalli wrote:
> On 1/2/2024 8:23 AM, Ira Weiny wrote:
> > Smita Koralahalli wrote:

[snip]

> >> diff --git a/include/linux/cxl-event.h b/include/linux/cxl-event.h
> >> index 17eadee819b6..afa71ee0437c 100644
> >> --- a/include/linux/cxl-event.h
> >> +++ b/include/linux/cxl-event.h
> >> @@ -141,8 +141,12 @@ struct cxl_cper_event_rec {
> >>   	union cxl_event event;
> >>   } __packed;
> >>   
> >> +struct cxl_cper_rec_data {
> >> +	struct cxl_cper_event_rec rec;
> > 
> > NIT: I would call this something like event to distinguish it from other
> > record data.
> 
> What do you think of the below?
> 
> struct cxl_cper_event_info {
> 	struct cxl_cper_event_rec rec;
> 	struct cxl_cper_prot_err {
> 		struct cxl_ras_capability_regs cxl_ras;
> 		int severity;
> 	} p_err;
> };
> 
> Addressed changing to sub-struct and copying the struct rather than 
> pointer comments in patch 3..

That is much better.  Thanks!
Ira