[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20260113194438.GRaWagpmRGD0qGx9az@fat_crate.local>
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2026 20:44:38 +0100
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Nikolay Borisov <nik.borisov@...e.com>
Cc: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>,
"Li, Rongqing" <lirongqing@...du.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Yazen Ghannam <yazen.ghannam@....com>,
"Zhuo, Qiuxu" <qiuxu.zhuo@...el.com>,
Avadhut Naik <avadhut.naik@....com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-edac@...r.kernel.org" <linux-edac@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: 答复: 答复: 答复: [外部邮件] Re: [PATCH] x86/mce: Fix timer interval adjustment after logging a MCE event
On Tue, Jan 13, 2026 at 09:37:13PM +0200, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
> Yes, and why is Li's approach not working, i.e if mc_poll_banks() returns a
> value signalling "i found an MCE" we halve, otherwise we double it?
It might be "working" but I don't like that "bool logged" thing and
marshalling it back'n'forth. This should be waaay simpler.
> That's certainly doable, but why should the interval setting be coupled to
> the initial notifier and not to mc_poll_banks?
What's the difference who notifies the timer? The banks polling will call the
notifier if it finds an error to log.
But before we do any of that, we need to figure out what commit broke this so
that we fix stable.
Thx.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
Powered by blists - more mailing lists