Re: [PATCH -v2 3/7] x86, NMI, Rename memory parity error to PCI SERR error

[Robert Richter <robert.richter@amd.com>]

On 27.09.10 11:33:15, Don Zickus wrote:
> 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. :-)

Yes, thanks, this makes me happy. :)

> 
> 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)

We should keep printing the reason byte as it did before.

-Robert

-- 
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
Operating System Research Center