From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Chen Gong Subject: Re: [PATCH] ACPI, APEI: Add validation check before GHES error is recorded Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2012 09:53:05 +0800 Message-ID: <4F766381.4040104@linux.intel.com> References: <1333004952-12403-1-git-send-email-gong.chen@linux.intel.com> <3908561D78D1C84285E8C5FCA982C28F15B73074@ORSMSX104.amr.corp.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Received: from mga02.intel.com ([134.134.136.20]:4980 "EHLO mga02.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751106Ab2CaBxH (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Mar 2012 21:53:07 -0400 In-Reply-To: <3908561D78D1C84285E8C5FCA982C28F15B73074@ORSMSX104.amr.corp.intel.com> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: "Luck, Tony" Cc: "Huang, Ying" , "lenb@kernel.org" , "linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org" =E4=BA=8E 2012/3/30 1:07, Luck, Tony =E5=86=99=E9=81=93: > + if (mem_err->validation_bits& CPER_MEM_VALID_PHYSICAL_ADDRESS) > + m.addr =3D 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 th= e > 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,=20 otherwise, I prefer to add check condition out of this function, not here. What's your opinion, Ying? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" i= n the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html