From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759660Ab0I0Pd1 (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Sep 2010 11:33:27 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:47218 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759611Ab0I0Pd0 (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Sep 2010 11:33:26 -0400 Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 11:33:15 -0400 From: Don Zickus To: Robert Richter Cc: Huang Ying , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Andi Kleen Subject: Re: [PATCH -v2 3/7] x86, NMI, Rename memory parity error to PCI SERR error Message-ID: <20100927153315.GB26290@redhat.com> References: <1285549026-5008-1-git-send-email-ying.huang@intel.com> <1285549026-5008-3-git-send-email-ying.huang@intel.com> <20100927080106.GA32222@erda.amd.com> <1285576760.20791.70.camel@yhuang-dev> <20100927090056.GJ13563@erda.amd.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100927090056.GJ13563@erda.amd.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-08-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 11:00:56AM +0200, Robert Richter wrote: > On 27.09.10 04:39:20, Huang Ying wrote: > > > I already commented on this, patch #1 and #3 are basically the same in > > > most parts which should be merged. What remains then in this patch is > > > the modified printk() and the comment. Both could be added to #1 too > > > which is then some sort of code cleanup patch. > > > > Don thinks it is Ok to keep 2 patches. > > I don't like reviewing new changes which are thrown away with the next > patch. I review things twice and it is much harder to see what really > changed then. Also we should have a clean history. I didn't care either way. But if it makes it easier to review, it's nice to keep reviewers happy too. :-) Hunag, I think there is going to be a V3 of this series, could you just combine these patches then? > > And with git it is fairly easy to join patches. > > > > > > > #define NMI_REASON_CLEAR_IOCHK 0x08 > > > > #define NMI_REASON_CLEAR_MASK 0x0f > > > > > > > > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/traps.c > > > > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/traps.c > > > > @@ -301,15 +301,14 @@ gp_in_kernel: > > > > } > > > > > > > > static notrace __kprobes void > > > > -mem_parity_error(unsigned char reason, struct pt_regs *regs) > > > > +pci_serr_error(unsigned char reason, struct pt_regs *regs) > > > > { > > > > - printk(KERN_EMERG > > > > - "Uhhuh. NMI received for unknown reason %02x on CPU %d.\n", > > > > - reason, smp_processor_id()); > > > > - > > > > - printk(KERN_EMERG > > > > - "You have some hardware problem, likely on the PCI bus.\n"); > > > > + printk(KERN_EMERG "NMI: PCI system error (SERR).\n"); > > > > > > You should keep reporting the cpu id to identify the affected node and > > > also the reason. > > > > Ok. I will add CPU ID in message. Because we know the reason, I don't > > think we need the reason in message. > > You only know that bit 7 is set, not the rest. As this is an error > message we should provide as much information as possible. Well, what other info do we know besides that bit being set? (I wish we had more, but I don't think we do) Cheers, Don