* [RFC,v2,2/4] acpi: apei: Split GHES handlers outside of ghes_do_proc
@ 2018-04-16 21:59 Alexandru Gagniuc
0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Alexandru Gagniuc @ 2018-04-16 21:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-acpi, linux-edac
Cc: rjw, lenb, tony.luck, bp, tbaicar, will.deacon, james.morse,
shiju.jose, zjzhang, gengdongjiu, linux-kernel, alex_gagniuc,
austin_bolen, shyam_iyer, devel, mchehab, robert.moore,
erik.schmauss, Alexandru Gagniuc
Use a mapping from CPER UUID to get the correct handler for a given
GHES error. This is in preparation of splitting some handlers into
irq safe and regular parts.
Signed-off-by: Alexandru Gagniuc <mr.nuke.me@gmail.com>
---
drivers/acpi/apei/ghes.c | 78 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
1 file changed, 63 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/acpi/apei/ghes.c b/drivers/acpi/apei/ghes.c
index f9b53a6f55f3..2119c51b4a9e 100644
--- a/drivers/acpi/apei/ghes.c
+++ b/drivers/acpi/apei/ghes.c
@@ -414,6 +414,25 @@ static void ghes_handle_memory_failure(struct acpi_hest_generic_data *gdata, int
#endif
}
+static int ghes_handle_arm(struct acpi_hest_generic_data *gdata, int sev)
+{
+ struct cper_sec_proc_arm *err = acpi_hest_get_payload(gdata);
+
+ log_arm_hw_error(err);
+ return ghes_severity(gdata->error_severity);
+}
+
+static int ghes_handle_mem(struct acpi_hest_generic_data *gdata, int sev)
+{
+ struct cper_sec_mem_err *mem_err = acpi_hest_get_payload(gdata);
+
+ ghes_edac_report_mem_error(sev, mem_err);
+ arch_apei_report_mem_error(sev, mem_err);
+ ghes_handle_memory_failure(gdata, sev);
+
+ return ghes_severity(gdata->error_severity);
+}
+
/*
* PCIe AER errors need to be sent to the AER driver for reporting and
* recovery. The GHES severities map to the following AER severities and
@@ -428,7 +447,7 @@ static void ghes_handle_memory_failure(struct acpi_hest_generic_data *gdata, int
* GHES_SEV_PANIC does not make it to this handling since the kernel must
* panic.
*/
-static void ghes_handle_aer(struct acpi_hest_generic_data *gdata)
+static int ghes_handle_aer(struct acpi_hest_generic_data *gdata, int sev)
{
#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI_APEI_PCIEAER
struct cper_sec_pcie *pcie_err = acpi_hest_get_payload(gdata);
@@ -456,14 +475,54 @@ static void ghes_handle_aer(struct acpi_hest_generic_data *gdata)
(struct aer_capability_regs *)
pcie_err->aer_info);
}
+
+ return GHES_SEV_CORRECTED;
#endif
+ return ghes_severity(gdata->error_severity);
}
+/**
+ * ghes_handler - handler for ACPI APEI errors
+ * @error_uuid: UUID describing the error entry (See ACPI/EFI CPER for details)
+ * @handle: Handler for the GHES entry of type 'error_uuid'. The handler
+ * returns the severity of the error after handling. A handler is allowed
+ * to demote errors to correctable or corrected, as appropriate.
+ */
+static const struct ghes_handler {
+ const guid_t *error_uuid;
+ int (*handle_irqsafe)(struct acpi_hest_generic_data *gdata, int sev);
+ int (*handle)(struct acpi_hest_generic_data *gdata, int sev);
+} ghes_handlers[] = {
+ {
+ .error_uuid = &CPER_SEC_PLATFORM_MEM,
+ .handle = ghes_handle_mem,
+ }, {
+ .error_uuid = &CPER_SEC_PCIE,
+ .handle = ghes_handle_aer,
+ }, {
+ .error_uuid = &CPER_SEC_PROC_ARM,
+ .handle = ghes_handle_arm,
+ }
+};
+
+static const struct ghes_handler *get_handler(const guid_t *type)
+{
+ size_t i;
+
+ for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(ghes_handlers); i++) {
+ if (guid_equal(type, ghes_handlers[i].error_uuid))
+ return &ghes_handlers[i];
+ }
+ return NULL;
+}
+
+
static void ghes_do_proc(struct ghes *ghes,
const struct acpi_hest_generic_status *estatus)
{
int sev, sec_sev;
struct acpi_hest_generic_data *gdata;
+ const struct ghes_handler *handler;
guid_t *sec_type;
guid_t *fru_id = &NULL_UUID_LE;
char *fru_text = "";
@@ -478,21 +537,10 @@ static void ghes_do_proc(struct ghes *ghes,
if (gdata->validation_bits & CPER_SEC_VALID_FRU_TEXT)
fru_text = gdata->fru_text;
- if (guid_equal(sec_type, &CPER_SEC_PLATFORM_MEM)) {
- struct cper_sec_mem_err *mem_err = acpi_hest_get_payload(gdata);
-
- ghes_edac_report_mem_error(sev, mem_err);
-
- arch_apei_report_mem_error(sev, mem_err);
- ghes_handle_memory_failure(gdata, sev);
- }
- else if (guid_equal(sec_type, &CPER_SEC_PCIE)) {
- ghes_handle_aer(gdata);
- }
- else if (guid_equal(sec_type, &CPER_SEC_PROC_ARM)) {
- struct cper_sec_proc_arm *err = acpi_hest_get_payload(gdata);
- log_arm_hw_error(err);
+ handler = get_handler(sec_type);
+ if (handler) {
+ sec_sev = handler->handle(gdata, sev);
} else {
void *err = acpi_hest_get_payload(gdata);
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [RFC,v2,2/4] acpi: apei: Split GHES handlers outside of ghes_do_proc
@ 2018-04-18 17:52 Borislav Petkov
0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Borislav Petkov @ 2018-04-18 17:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alexandru Gagniuc
Cc: linux-acpi, linux-edac, rjw, lenb, tony.luck, tbaicar,
will.deacon, james.morse, shiju.jose, zjzhang, gengdongjiu,
linux-kernel, alex_gagniuc, austin_bolen, shyam_iyer, devel,
mchehab, robert.moore, erik.schmauss
On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 04:59:01PM -0500, Alexandru Gagniuc wrote:
> static void ghes_do_proc(struct ghes *ghes,
> const struct acpi_hest_generic_status *estatus)
> {
> int sev, sec_sev;
> struct acpi_hest_generic_data *gdata;
> + const struct ghes_handler *handler;
> guid_t *sec_type;
> guid_t *fru_id = &NULL_UUID_LE;
> char *fru_text = "";
> @@ -478,21 +537,10 @@ static void ghes_do_proc(struct ghes *ghes,
> if (gdata->validation_bits & CPER_SEC_VALID_FRU_TEXT)
> fru_text = gdata->fru_text;
>
> - if (guid_equal(sec_type, &CPER_SEC_PLATFORM_MEM)) {
> - struct cper_sec_mem_err *mem_err = acpi_hest_get_payload(gdata);
> -
> - ghes_edac_report_mem_error(sev, mem_err);
> -
> - arch_apei_report_mem_error(sev, mem_err);
> - ghes_handle_memory_failure(gdata, sev);
> - }
> - else if (guid_equal(sec_type, &CPER_SEC_PCIE)) {
> - ghes_handle_aer(gdata);
> - }
> - else if (guid_equal(sec_type, &CPER_SEC_PROC_ARM)) {
> - struct cper_sec_proc_arm *err = acpi_hest_get_payload(gdata);
>
> - log_arm_hw_error(err);
> + handler = get_handler(sec_type);
I don't like this - it was better and more readable before because I can
follow which handler gets called. This change makes is less readable.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [RFC,v2,2/4] acpi: apei: Split GHES handlers outside of ghes_do_proc
@ 2018-04-19 14:19 Alexandru Gagniuc
0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Alexandru Gagniuc @ 2018-04-19 14:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Borislav Petkov
Cc: linux-acpi, linux-edac, rjw, lenb, tony.luck, tbaicar,
will.deacon, james.morse, shiju.jose, zjzhang, gengdongjiu,
linux-kernel, alex_gagniuc, austin_bolen, shyam_iyer, devel,
mchehab, robert.moore, erik.schmauss
On 04/18/2018 12:52 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 04:59:01PM -0500, Alexandru Gagniuc wrote:
>> static void ghes_do_proc(struct ghes *ghes,
>> const struct acpi_hest_generic_status *estatus)
>> {
>> int sev, sec_sev;
>> struct acpi_hest_generic_data *gdata;
>> + const struct ghes_handler *handler;
>> guid_t *sec_type;
>> guid_t *fru_id = &NULL_UUID_LE;
>> char *fru_text = "";
>> @@ -478,21 +537,10 @@ static void ghes_do_proc(struct ghes *ghes,
>> if (gdata->validation_bits & CPER_SEC_VALID_FRU_TEXT)
>> fru_text = gdata->fru_text;
>>
>> - if (guid_equal(sec_type, &CPER_SEC_PLATFORM_MEM)) {
>> - struct cper_sec_mem_err *mem_err = acpi_hest_get_payload(gdata);
>> -
>> - ghes_edac_report_mem_error(sev, mem_err);
>> -
>> - arch_apei_report_mem_error(sev, mem_err);
>> - ghes_handle_memory_failure(gdata, sev);
>> - }
>> - else if (guid_equal(sec_type, &CPER_SEC_PCIE)) {
>> - ghes_handle_aer(gdata);
>> - }
>> - else if (guid_equal(sec_type, &CPER_SEC_PROC_ARM)) {
>> - struct cper_sec_proc_arm *err = acpi_hest_get_payload(gdata);
>>
>> - log_arm_hw_error(err);
>> + handler = get_handler(sec_type);
>
> I don't like this - it was better and more readable before because I can
> follow which handler gets called. This change makes is less readable.
I agree with the readability argument in the current situation of three
handlers. I guess I was thinking ahead and generalizing for an arbitrary
number of handlers.
On the other side, you lose readability as soon as you get a few more
handlers and the function becomes too long. And more importantly, you
lose generality: it's not obvious that there's
ghes_edac_report_mem_error() which too wide a context.
Alex
---
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-edac" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [RFC,v2,2/4] acpi: apei: Split GHES handlers outside of ghes_do_proc
@ 2018-04-19 14:30 Borislav Petkov
0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Borislav Petkov @ 2018-04-19 14:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alex G.
Cc: linux-acpi, linux-edac, rjw, lenb, tony.luck, tbaicar,
will.deacon, james.morse, shiju.jose, zjzhang, gengdongjiu,
linux-kernel, alex_gagniuc, austin_bolen, shyam_iyer, devel,
mchehab, robert.moore, erik.schmauss
On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 09:19:03AM -0500, Alex G. wrote:
> On the other side, you lose readability as soon as you get a few more
> handlers and the function becomes too long.
No you don't - you split it properly.
> And more importantly, you lose generality: it's not obvious that
> there's ghes_edac_report_mem_error() which too wide a context.
I don't understand what that means.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [RFC,v2,2/4] acpi: apei: Split GHES handlers outside of ghes_do_proc
@ 2018-04-19 14:57 Alexandru Gagniuc
0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Alexandru Gagniuc @ 2018-04-19 14:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Borislav Petkov
Cc: linux-acpi, linux-edac, rjw, lenb, tony.luck, tbaicar,
will.deacon, james.morse, shiju.jose, zjzhang, gengdongjiu,
linux-kernel, alex_gagniuc, austin_bolen, shyam_iyer, devel,
mchehab, robert.moore, erik.schmauss
On 04/19/2018 09:30 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 09:19:03AM -0500, Alex G. wrote:
>> On the other side, you lose readability as soon as you get a few more
>> handlers and the function becomes too long.
>
> No you don't - you split it properly.
And that was the motivation behind my splitting it in this patch.
>> And more importantly, you lose generality: it's not obvious that
>> there's ghes_edac_report_mem_error() which too wide a context.
>
> I don't understand what that means.
My apologies, sometimes my thought is too far ahead of my typing
fingers. For the purpose of handling _one_ error, you need the CPER
entry for that one error -- narrow context. You don't need the entire
GHES structure -- wide context. Individual handlers should not be able
to access the entire ghes.
When the handlers are restricted to a common signature --which doesn't
include ghes--, it's obvious when functions try to bite more than they
can chew.
Alex
---
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-edac" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [RFC,v2,2/4] acpi: apei: Split GHES handlers outside of ghes_do_proc
@ 2018-04-19 15:29 Borislav Petkov
0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Borislav Petkov @ 2018-04-19 15:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alex G.
Cc: linux-acpi, linux-edac, rjw, lenb, tony.luck, tbaicar,
will.deacon, james.morse, shiju.jose, zjzhang, gengdongjiu,
linux-kernel, alex_gagniuc, austin_bolen, shyam_iyer, devel,
mchehab, robert.moore, erik.schmauss
On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 09:57:08AM -0500, Alex G. wrote:
> And that was the motivation behind my splitting it in this patch.
By "split" I don't mean add a function pointer which gets selected and
then called - if the function becomes too long, you simply split the
function body properly.
> You don't need the entire GHES structure -- wide context. Individual
> handlers should not be able to access the entire ghes.
But you remove the @ghes argument in patch 1. So what are we even
talking about?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [RFC,v2,2/4] acpi: apei: Split GHES handlers outside of ghes_do_proc
@ 2018-04-19 15:46 Alexandru Gagniuc
0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Alexandru Gagniuc @ 2018-04-19 15:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Borislav Petkov
Cc: linux-acpi, linux-edac, rjw, lenb, tony.luck, tbaicar,
will.deacon, james.morse, shiju.jose, zjzhang, gengdongjiu,
linux-kernel, alex_gagniuc, austin_bolen, shyam_iyer, devel,
mchehab, robert.moore, erik.schmauss
On 04/19/2018 10:29 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 09:57:08AM -0500, Alex G. wrote:
>> And that was the motivation behind my splitting it in this patch.
>
> By "split" I don't mean add a function pointer which gets selected and
> then called - if the function becomes too long, you simply split the
> function body properly.
The bulk of the function is the if/else mapping from UUID to error
handler. I don't see how that can be easily split up, hence why I
originally resorted to the mapping. As you said, we'll keep it simple at
first.
>> You don't need the entire GHES structure -- wide context. Individual
>> handlers should not be able to access the entire ghes.
>
> But you remove the @ghes argument in patch 1. So what are we even
> talking about?
You could say, by convention, handlers shouldn't access ghes directly,
but that is not obvious when @ghes is in scope. The reason I bring it up
is that, if [1/4] ends up being unneeded, then I will drop it from the
series.
Alex
---
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-edac" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [RFC,v2,2/4] acpi: apei: Split GHES handlers outside of ghes_do_proc
@ 2018-04-19 16:40 Borislav Petkov
0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Borislav Petkov @ 2018-04-19 16:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alex G.
Cc: linux-acpi, linux-edac, rjw, lenb, tony.luck, tbaicar,
will.deacon, james.morse, shiju.jose, zjzhang, gengdongjiu,
linux-kernel, alex_gagniuc, austin_bolen, shyam_iyer, devel,
mchehab, robert.moore, erik.schmauss
On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 10:46:15AM -0500, Alex G. wrote:
> The bulk of the function is the if/else mapping from UUID to error
> handler. I don't see how that can be easily split up, hence why I
> originally resorted to the mapping. As you said, we'll keep it simple at
> first.
So that function is 43 lines now. Why are we even talking about this?!
Just add your UUID check to the if-else statement and be done with it
already. No handlers no nothing.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2018-04-19 16:40 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2018-04-19 16:40 [RFC,v2,2/4] acpi: apei: Split GHES handlers outside of ghes_do_proc Borislav Petkov
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2018-04-19 15:46 Alexandru Gagniuc
2018-04-19 15:29 Borislav Petkov
2018-04-19 14:57 Alexandru Gagniuc
2018-04-19 14:30 Borislav Petkov
2018-04-19 14:19 Alexandru Gagniuc
2018-04-18 17:52 Borislav Petkov
2018-04-16 21:59 Alexandru Gagniuc
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).