From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62D41CA9ECF for ; Fri, 1 Nov 2019 15:54:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3533C208E3 for ; Fri, 1 Nov 2019 15:54:25 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=alien8.de header.i=@alien8.de header.b="CEtN9CI/" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727956AbfKAPyY (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Nov 2019 11:54:24 -0400 Received: from mail.skyhub.de ([5.9.137.197]:52652 "EHLO mail.skyhub.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727123AbfKAPyY (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Nov 2019 11:54:24 -0400 Received: from nazgul.tnic (unknown [46.218.74.72]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.skyhub.de (SuperMail on ZX Spectrum 128k) with ESMTPSA id 25F2B1EC0AD6; Fri, 1 Nov 2019 16:54:23 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=alien8.de; s=dkim; t=1572623663; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:in-reply-to: references:references; bh=vU6VGS46rfg0BH1qVh/1bYvbh3G5urqXBMKadSJ/iro=; b=CEtN9CI/TgQxUo/VD7Kqn6nOrA9q5B2ao4s5aCW7j8Qmsw2QNYdFSTuignxxD4ju5GyXO1 hARQDoV7vZMX0kTTW7dteByHvEglKiVCfP9rVcQrrcC+jOoW+j7ltgLDCr/6hbGrW0bwaB f2yNmiSyVSHHwMhuqmWXAJiDj4yt18Y= Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2019 16:54:12 +0100 From: Borislav Petkov To: "Ghannam, Yazen" Cc: "linux-edac@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/6] AMD64 EDAC: Check for nodes without memory, etc. Message-ID: <20191101155412.GA2300@nazgul.tnic> References: <20191022203448.13962-1-Yazen.Ghannam@amd.com> <20191025133456.GA6483@zn.tnic> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: linux-edac-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-edac@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 03:19:36PM +0000, Ghannam, Yazen wrote: > Is the module being probed twice? We have this problem in general, e.g. the > module gets loaded multiple times on failure. Yap, it looks like it. > The clue for me is that node 0 gets detected twice. This is done in > per_family_init() early in probe_one_instance(). > > In any case, I think we can make !ecc_enabled(pvt) in probe_one_instance() a > failure now that we have an explicit check for memory on a node. In other > words, if we have memory and ECC is disabled then this is a failure for the > module. Yeah, for that case we should be printing ecc_msg. Makes sense. Thx. -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply. --