[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240510192556.GDZj50xFIWSqK2gzQR@fat_crate.local>
Date: Fri, 10 May 2024 21:25:56 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: "Fabio M. De Francesco" <fabio.m.de.francesco@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-edac@...r.kernel.org,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 3/3] ACPI: extlog: Make print_extlog_rcd() log
unconditionally
On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 09:00:34PM +0200, Fabio M. De Francesco wrote:
> I thought that ELOG and GHES should be modeled consistently. ghes_proc()
> prints to the console while ghes_do_proc() also uses ftrace.
ghes_proc() calls ghes_do_proc(). I have no clue what you mean here.
> If we want to make ELOG and GHES act similarly, this patch is needed.
I still don't know what the problem is.
> Please note that I was introducing the "why" part of the message. I never
> refer to this patch for the "what", and I always use an imperative tone only
> in the "what" part.
No, this is not what I meant. I mean, don't say "This patch does" or "This
commit does" or "This change ... " or whatnot as that is not necessary.
IOW:
"Make extlog_print() (ELOG) log consistently with ghes_proc() (GHES)
because... " and this is where you come in.
So let's start with the problem: what is it and why do you think it is
a problem?
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
Powered by blists - more mailing lists