From: Vasiliy Kulikov <segooon@gmail.com>
To: Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>
Cc: kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
x86@kernel.org, Hidetoshi Seto <seto.hidetoshi@jp.fujitsu.com>,
Borislav Petkov <borislav.petkov@amd.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/10] x86: mce: fix error handling
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 17:13:27 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100728171327.GA24149@albatros> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4C5063D4.4070108@linux.intel.com>
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 19:07 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On 7/28/2010 6:39 PM, Kulikov Vasiliy wrote:
> >mcheck_init_device() poorly handles errors. If any request fails
> >unregister and free everything.
>
> Actually these are at early boot time and only contain memory errors,
> and if you run out of memory at this stage the system is usually
> dead in the water anyways. The best you can do at this stage
> is panicing, but silently returning from the the init function doesn't
> help anyone. But someone else will likely panic anyways.
>
> e.g. boot time allocations of cpu masks generally do not check for memory
> failures and I think that's ok, not a bug.
>
> Your patch would be good if the driver was modular, but it isn't.
I'm agree with you that if allocation fails at boot time, we are dead :)
But this coding style breaking rules that result from some functions
_must_ be checked for errors. Maybe we should add BUG_ON() here or
indicate someway that we have no ideas how to handle error?
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Vasiliy Kulikov <segooon@gmail.com>
To: Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>
Cc: kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
x86@kernel.org, Hidetoshi Seto <seto.hidetoshi@jp.fujitsu.com>,
Borislav Petkov <borislav.petkov@amd.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/10] x86: mce: fix error handling
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 21:13:27 +0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100728171327.GA24149@albatros> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4C5063D4.4070108@linux.intel.com>
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 19:07 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On 7/28/2010 6:39 PM, Kulikov Vasiliy wrote:
> >mcheck_init_device() poorly handles errors. If any request fails
> >unregister and free everything.
>
> Actually these are at early boot time and only contain memory errors,
> and if you run out of memory at this stage the system is usually
> dead in the water anyways. The best you can do at this stage
> is panicing, but silently returning from the the init function doesn't
> help anyone. But someone else will likely panic anyways.
>
> e.g. boot time allocations of cpu masks generally do not check for memory
> failures and I think that's ok, not a bug.
>
> Your patch would be good if the driver was modular, but it isn't.
I'm agree with you that if allocation fails at boot time, we are dead :)
But this coding style breaking rules that result from some functions
_must_ be checked for errors. Maybe we should add BUG_ON() here or
indicate someway that we have no ideas how to handle error?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-07-28 17:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-07-28 16:39 [PATCH 04/10] x86: mce: fix error handling Kulikov Vasiliy
2010-07-28 16:39 ` Kulikov Vasiliy
2010-07-28 16:48 ` Borislav Petkov
2010-07-28 16:48 ` Borislav Petkov
2010-07-28 17:07 ` Andi Kleen
2010-07-28 17:07 ` Andi Kleen
2010-07-28 17:13 ` Vasiliy Kulikov [this message]
2010-07-28 17:13 ` Vasiliy Kulikov
2010-07-28 17:20 ` Andi Kleen
2010-07-28 17:20 ` Andi Kleen
2010-07-29 9:35 ` Vasiliy Kulikov
2010-07-29 9:35 ` Vasiliy Kulikov
2010-07-29 9:51 ` Andi Kleen
2010-07-29 9:51 ` Andi Kleen
2010-07-29 10:10 ` walter harms
2010-07-29 10:10 ` walter harms
2010-07-31 18:18 ` Vasiliy Kulikov
2010-07-31 18:18 ` Vasiliy Kulikov
2010-07-31 19:07 ` Vasiliy Kulikov
2010-07-31 19:07 ` Vasiliy Kulikov
2010-07-29 10:16 ` Borislav Petkov
2010-07-29 10:16 ` Borislav Petkov
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20100728171327.GA24149@albatros \
--to=segooon@gmail.com \
--cc=ak@linux.intel.com \
--cc=borislav.petkov@amd.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=seto.hidetoshi@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.