[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5bfc156e-10f4-4ecd-a8d8-852b2e708671@amd.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2024 08:54:00 -0500
From: Terry Bowman <Terry.Bowman@....com>
To: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>, ming4.li@...el.com,
linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, dave@...olabs.net, jonathan.cameron@...wei.com,
dave.jiang@...el.com, alison.schofield@...el.com, vishal.l.verma@...el.com,
bhelgaas@...gle.com, mahesh@...ux.ibm.com, oohall@...il.com,
Benjamin.Cheatham@....com, rrichter@....com, nathan.fontenot@....com,
smita.koralahallichannabasappa@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/15] cxl/aer/pci: Update is_internal_error() to be
callable w/o CONFIG_PCIEAER_CXL
Hi Dan,
On 10/21/24 21:17, Dan Williams wrote:
> Terry Bowman wrote:
>> CXL port error handling will be updated in future and will use
>> logic to determine if an error requires CXL or PCIe processing.
>> Internal errors are one indicator to identify an error is a CXL
>> protocol error.
>
> I expect it would better to fold this into the patch that makes use of
> the is_internal_error() outside of the CONFIG_PCIEAER_CXL case.
>
> With this patch in isolation it is not clear that a kernel that sets
> CONFIG_PCIEAER_CXL=n should distinguish PCIe internal errors from CXL
> errors.
>
> The real problem seems to be that CONFIG_PCIEAER_CXL depends on CXL_PCI.
> I.e. is_internal_error() only matters for the CXL case, and the CXL
> handling is moving more into the core and dropping its CXL_PCI
> dependency.
I will merge the patch as you described.
Regards,
Terry
Powered by blists - more mailing lists