Re: [PATCH] ACPI, APEI: Add validation check before GHES error is recorded

[Huang Ying <ying.huang@intel.com>]

On Sat, 2012-03-31 at 09:53 +0800, Chen Gong wrote:
> 于 2012/3/30 1:07, Luck, Tony 写道:
> > +	if (mem_err->validation_bits&  CPER_MEM_VALID_PHYSICAL_ADDRESS)
> > +		m.addr = mem_err->physical_addr;
> >
> > At the moment "addr" is the only useful value in this record ... so
> > if we find that we can't supply it because we don't know it - then the
> > record has no value, and we might as well not send it.
> >
> > E.g. start the function with:
> >
> > 	if (!(mem_err->validation_bits&  CPER_MEM_VALID_PHYSICAL_ADDRESS))
> > 		return;
> >
> > -Tony
> >
> But as Ying said before, in theory we need to support this scenario, 
> otherwise, I prefer to
> add check condition out of this function, not here.
> 
> What's your opinion, Ying?

Yes.  I have said that.  We need to report memory error even without
physical address.  But now I think maybe we need not to report that in
mce in addition to GHES.

So my current idea is as follow:

- For corrected memory error with address collected via GHES
  - report it in GHES and MCE (fake bank 1)

- Others
  - report it in GHES only

How to filter it is a coding style issue.  The filter can be in
ghes_do_proc() or apei_mce_report_mem_error().  Both are OK for me.
Personally, I prefer to filter it in apei_mce_report_mem_error().
Because it is a MCE trick/quirk instead of GHES trick/quirk.

Best Regards,
Huang Ying


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html