[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CY8PR11MB7134D5AE729B583BF1BC7B41895A2@CY8PR11MB7134.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2024 14:48:22 +0000
From: "Zhuo, Qiuxu" <qiuxu.zhuo@...el.com>
To: Yazen Ghannam <yazen.ghannam@....com>
CC: "bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>, "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>, "dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com"
<dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, "mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>, "Mehta, Sohil" <sohil.mehta@...el.com>,
"nik.borisov@...e.com" <nik.borisov@...e.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>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v4 8/8] x86/mce: Fix typos
Hi Yazen,
> From: Yazen Ghannam <yazen.ghannam@....com>
> [...]
> > @@ -1144,7 +1144,7 @@ static noinstr int mce_start(int *no_way_out)
> > } else {
> > /*
> > * Subject: Now start the scanning loop one by one in
> > - * the original callin order.
> > + * the original calling order.
>
> I don't think this is a typo. It seems to refer to the mce_callin variable/idea.
>
> For example, each CPU "calls in" when ready. This is independent of when
> each CPU is "called" to do something.
>
> CPUs are called in this order 0, 1, 2.
> CPUs "call in" in this order 1, 0, 2.
>
> When a CPU is called can be different from when it responds.
>
> Maybe I'm reading too much into this. :/
Too finicky to me :(
But I appreciate you sharing your reading and thoughts. 😊
-Qiuxu
Powered by blists - more mailing lists