From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Chen, Gong" Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] ACPI, APEI, GHES: Cleanup ghes codes for memory error handling Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2013 08:42:43 -0500 Message-ID: <20131214134243.GB2823@gchen.bj.intel.com> References: <1385363701-12387-1-git-send-email-gong.chen@linux.intel.com> <1385363701-12387-2-git-send-email-gong.chen@linux.intel.com> <20131126065456.GB26098@gchen.bj.intel.com> <20131126072335.GA20917@pd.tnic> <20131127021541.GA32135@gchen.bj.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="bCsyhTFzCvuiizWE" Return-path: Received: from mga02.intel.com ([134.134.136.20]:9725 "EHLO mga02.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752196Ab3LNOAs (ORCPT ); Sat, 14 Dec 2013 09:00:48 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20131127021541.GA32135@gchen.bj.intel.com> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Borislav Petkov , tony.luck@intel.com, naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org --bCsyhTFzCvuiizWE Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 09:15:42PM -0500, Chen, Gong wrote: > Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 21:15:42 -0500 > From: "Chen, Gong" > To: Borislav Petkov > Cc: tony.luck@intel.com, naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com, > linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] ACPI, APEI, GHES: Cleanup ghes codes for memo= ry > error handling > User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) >=20 > On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 08:23:35AM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote: > > Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 08:23:35 +0100 > > From: Borislav Petkov > > To: "Chen, Gong" > > Cc: tony.luck@intel.com, naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com, > > linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] ACPI, APEI, GHES: Cleanup ghes codes for me= mory > > error handling > > User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) > >=20 > > On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 01:54:57AM -0500, Chen, Gong wrote: > > > In this patch so-called cleanup includes an implied PFN check for UC > > > error but missed in current codes. > >=20 > > Right, I was about to look at it. You probably should add this to the > > commit message so that it is clear. > >=20 >=20 > How about this: >=20 > Add proper PFN validity check for UC error and cleanup the code logic > to make it simpler and cleaner. >=20 > If OK and reasonable for this patch, would you mind helping to update the > introduction in the patch before merging it? Hi, Boris Will you pick up this patch in your RAS request pull? --bCsyhTFzCvuiizWE Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.15 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJSrGBTAAoJEI01n1+kOSLHrgUP/RHhRH6Xc8qnks80pg8lwkk2 PQy2hvUgKtTBEcHpGeDNqCohVhCSLml4C6Pha3YI4uvNXfNNCA7XKgyorce2AXUx WOt5FoCCcoe7Jf+zOR9Q6N2mEmXiUyMbmE/BcrICsDp4Gfj64TJHd/K2YCM03BBf Y5sAOvKf1FzJa44p7tqEkzDJrUHnFkuH8flyGaoFNxE3HoLC8WSg5FVf62J8PwE3 jiFYoMlH98fK3uSDCyMor22JSbAN1HF37zZeUt+Go/KGcrnADyu91cwdG90Xifbd e53O22XMScbSRNb1AyZ7eRQnamfZsdXvbOCgl4lLE2Xwk5gssUL2/9003CE2PNb4 /2QqPpZsumx20j1x6qAPdrQ1Xck+lZC8iVSs1eFXxjV2R59o2+r5j4usqpkPxPNr jU7NqWP3p2V9p2NLBWaxCy8iyNn3l5NkswuoS3YgVM16BGbRB+DpQ6XUcZsV9A90 vlCY2wILIvD2AVIKPtTLi616/SjlH5UTZiHBPvTqAKvk6eC0C93Nwddg5BamUy10 06NQB/nD+uh+m/7vJEIV9ISVWGkLnZUdxKc4F2vOvF/UPWAK+qKHiNtoPiqagqYL WtduDzaMML68cE0Y1E6nWVi8z0FfTshCC6zo/O1UlycZ7yICBWLGmiEmurn2drFY LYOaN90qYXd+sMtJzawP =rm1O -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --bCsyhTFzCvuiizWE--