From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD610C3A5A2 for ; Fri, 23 Aug 2019 15:37:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A12AB20870 for ; Fri, 23 Aug 2019 15:37:48 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=alien8.de header.i=@alien8.de header.b="B0eLQoA+" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1730756AbfHWPhs (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Aug 2019 11:37:48 -0400 Received: from mail.skyhub.de ([5.9.137.197]:53482 "EHLO mail.skyhub.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726964AbfHWPhs (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Aug 2019 11:37:48 -0400 Received: from zn.tnic (p200300EC2F0BC5003C7EECCB3B09C289.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [IPv6:2003:ec:2f0b:c500:3c7e:eccb:3b09:c289]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.skyhub.de (SuperMail on ZX Spectrum 128k) with ESMTPSA id AEF401EC0ABC; Fri, 23 Aug 2019 17:37:42 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=alien8.de; s=dkim; t=1566574662; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:in-reply-to: references:references; bh=tPd7cxcXtF6Z+Vts+kIedJB73gp3fadMQe5eBBiTFdE=; b=B0eLQoA+9WuNOnW3WSnHEDtLu1fHqrDJNPmfsJfcOO5HhfuCMTgmMMhovAKvsgDageJFo9 L+gT/Gt/KchCGxZ+paP00XbphVe/1DT2RwOibkTuSQ+NKyx+GkUaSom9RTnS4KLBQHJvpJ 0Ce3QfPiezSDLesZQHnf3te02Tn8TuU= Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2019 17:37:39 +0200 From: Borislav Petkov To: "Ghannam, Yazen" Cc: Adam Borowski , "linux-edac@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/8] AMD64 EDAC fixes Message-ID: <20190823153739.GC28379@zn.tnic> References: <20190821235938.118710-1-Yazen.Ghannam@amd.com> <20190822005020.GA403@angband.pl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: linux-edac-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-edac@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 03:28:59PM +0000, Ghannam, Yazen wrote: > Boris, Do you think it'd be appropriate to change the return values > for some cases? > > For example, ECC disabled is a hardware configuration. This doesn't > mean that the module failed any operations in this case. > > In other words, the module checks for a feature. If the feature is not > present, then return without failure (and maybe give a message). That makes sense but AFAICT if probe_one_instance() sees that ECC is not enabled, it returns 0. The "if (!edac_has_mcs())" check later is to verify that at least once instance was loaded successfully and, if not, then return an error. So where does it return failure? -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.