From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Chen, Gong" Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/7 v4] CPER: Adjust code flow of some functions Date: Thu, 22 May 2014 21:49:10 -0400 Message-ID: <20140523014910.GB16945@gchen.bj.intel.com> 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> <20140522105242.GG4383@pd.tnic> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="jq0ap7NbKX2Kqbes" Return-path: Received: from mga02.intel.com ([134.134.136.20]:13521 "EHLO mga02.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750863AbaEWCQ5 (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 May 2014 22:16:57 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140522105242.GG4383@pd.tnic> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Borislav Petkov Cc: tony.luck@intel.com, m.chehab@samsung.com, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org --jq0ap7NbKX2Kqbes Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 12:52:42PM +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", > > >=20 > > > The physical address mask is still not part of the tracepoint as a u8= as > > > we talked. > > >=20 > > I thought out discussion is only for trace part. But it is OK to me to > > make whole style aligned. >=20 > No, I'm not talking about style - I'm talking about adding the physical a= ddress > mask to the tracepoint call: If so, it has been there already. Maybe you should check patch 5/7. I merge pa/pa_mask into pa_info as a whole to avoid too much calculation/logic in trace. > +TRACE_EVENT(extlog_mem_event, > + TP_PROTO(u32 etype, > + const uuid_le *fru_id, > + u64 error_count, >=20 > Btw, is that the error_count we're reporting?? You surely can't claim > that we'll ever report 2^64-1 errors, right? >=20 > I'd make that u32 and I'd call it >=20 > u32 error_number; Fine. >=20 > as it is a counter we're incrementing. >=20 > + u32 severity, Fine. --jq0ap7NbKX2Kqbes Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJTfqkWAAoJEI01n1+kOSLHU+4P/RBAbP/GktSak+ifwnMTCLZG 9zXjw42duJA3AU1Obh7C+OVXwRj6rrX38HRdD9YirieTh+qYOF1ffp16bQrvXIZe NSUOF7iqk0UOW36AyIWvM3mk+NlPHHP8pd1LwHL+JhNmz2AUjQakDoL8+N6aP69a I4oExvIPUUPA1K+0f72zLp25EM5dLY70sbrl8Dh3obiotdQoojn0JQcZwNonROVC 0TbruEH70ft5OGLc/chnOwr+nsMAukLpzBtdz2FpPiLqRUbvC3RcSFWrQ7pqRio0 qMRznniW2bSb1Au8ckSNas3oyPY1GettDmSJUeNJ/yiJDGhTbKAFT8S4JfpF3XIS 3IF5T1BIv9gvF4NmnTre+pzHtihIabPMQ9K2lGrRpm3kZc1k/SrA8NiWYVfhN7kY MgjeaWWTgzBL16lSdQW1vCct0+3MG2hpwNvxrr+wHvzrmx2N0ChWdWw+IcE258qP IlvTWP9EnEYAW8vORVN2KYgSrDq6vDmwwk5DcOrpezFCDepwoKUo7PG86HJp0yRz Mf1Oj31MYs7mnCpX+xCu14Ckm5E5/U7PRXYRpk3+4odSIVWJoWiidJ5DgbiWx8s6 JEiVQFM/Fyz+CrgmsSCPjmeXRCbf0ATl2/6VBVKyB3UsoRHA7Xm1DJhwyE2FIbor uufXJ7l+/klWS6H701XB =ZAxS -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --jq0ap7NbKX2Kqbes--