From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Borislav Petkov Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/7 v4] CPER: Adjust code flow of some functions Date: Thu, 22 May 2014 12:52:42 +0200 Message-ID: <20140522105242.GG4383@pd.tnic> References: <1400142646-10127-1-git-send-email-gong.chen@linux.intel.com> <1400142646-10127-4-git-send-email-gong.chen@linux.intel.com> <20140521110521.GF21205@pd.tnic> <20140521235159.GB1644@gchen.bj.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Return-path: Received: from mail.skyhub.de ([78.46.96.112]:59726 "EHLO mail.skyhub.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752428AbaEVKwo (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 May 2014 06:52:44 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140521235159.GB1644@gchen.bj.intel.com> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: "Chen, Gong" Cc: tony.luck@intel.com, m.chehab@samsung.com, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 07:51:59PM -0400, Chen, Gong wrote: > On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 01:05:21PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote: > > > +const char *cper_mem_err_type_str(unsigned int etype) > > > { > > > - if (mem->validation_bits & CPER_MEM_VALID_ERROR_STATUS) > > > - printk("%s""error_status: 0x%016llx\n", pfx, mem->error_status); > > > - if (mem->validation_bits & CPER_MEM_VALID_PA) > > > - printk("%s""physical_address: 0x%016llx\n", > > > - pfx, mem->physical_addr); > > > - if (mem->validation_bits & CPER_MEM_VALID_PA_MASK) > > > - printk("%s""physical_address_mask: 0x%016llx\n", > > > > The physical address mask is still not part of the tracepoint as a u8 as > > we talked. > > > I thought out discussion is only for trace part. But it is OK to me to > make whole style aligned. No, I'm not talking about style - I'm talking about adding the physical address mask to the tracepoint call: +TRACE_EVENT(extlog_mem_event, + TP_PROTO(u32 etype, + const uuid_le *fru_id, + u64 error_count, Btw, is that the error_count we're reporting?? You surely can't claim that we'll ever report 2^64-1 errors, right? I'd make that u32 and I'd call it u32 error_number; as it is a counter we're incrementing. + u32 severity, That severity can surely be u8 - we can't have 2^32-1 severities in any normal case - I see only 5. I'm sure 256 is plenty. And now that we slimmed some of those insanely-sized members, we can add u8 pa_mask_lsb or something to that effect. Makes sense? + char *dimm_info, + char *pa_info, + char *mem_loc, + char *fru_text), +TRACE_EVENT(extlog_mem_event, -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine. --