From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Baicar, Tyler" Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 02/10] ras: acpi/apei: cper: generic error data entry v3 per ACPI 6.1 Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2016 16:10:52 -0600 Message-ID: References: <1475875882-2604-1-git-send-email-tbaicar@codeaurora.org> <1475875882-2604-3-git-send-email-tbaicar@codeaurora.org> <3f17d0a8-6b63-5792-903a-341effaae432@arm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: <3f17d0a8-6b63-5792-903a-341effaae432@arm.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: kvmarm-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu Sender: kvmarm-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu To: Suzuki K Poulose , christoffer.dall@linaro.org, marc.zyngier@arm.com, pbonzini@redhat.com, rkrcmar@redhat.com, linux@armlinux.org.uk, catalin.marinas@arm.com, will.deacon@arm.com, rjw@rjwysocki.net, lenb@kernel.org, matt@codeblueprint.co.uk, robert.moore@intel.com, lv.zheng@intel.com, mark.rutland@arm.com, james.morse@arm.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, sandeepa.s.prabhu@gmail.com, shijie.huang@arm.com, paul.gortmaker@windriver.com, tomasz.nowicki@linaro.org, fu.wei@linaro.org, rostedt@goodmis.org, bristot@redhat.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, Dkvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-efi@vger.kernel.org, devel@acpica.org Cc: Naveen Kaje , Richard Ruigrok , "Jonathan (Zhixiong) Zhang" List-Id: linux-efi@vger.kernel.org Hello Suzuki, Thank you for the feedback! Responses below. On 10/11/2016 11:28 AM, Suzuki K Poulose wrote: > On 07/10/16 22:31, Tyler Baicar wrote: >> Currently when a RAS error is reported it is not timestamped. >> The ACPI 6.1 spec adds the timestamp field to the generic error >> data entry v3 structure. The timestamp of when the firmware >> generated the error is now being reported. >> >> Signed-off-by: Jonathan (Zhixiong) Zhang >> Signed-off-by: Richard Ruigrok >> Signed-off-by: Tyler Baicar >> Signed-off-by: Naveen Kaje > > Please could you keep the people who reviewed/commented on your series = > in the past, > whenever you post a new version ? Do you mean to just send the new version to their e-mail directly in = addition to the lists? If so, I will do that next time. I know you provided good feedback on the previous patchset, but I did = not have anyone specifically respond to add "reviewed-by:...". I don't = think I should add reviewed-by for someone unless they specifically add = it in a response :) > >> --- >> drivers/acpi/apei/ghes.c | 25 ++++++++++-- >> drivers/firmware/efi/cper.c | 97 = >> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------ >> 2 files changed, 105 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/apei/ghes.c b/drivers/acpi/apei/ghes.c >> index 3021f0e..c8488f1 100644 >> --- a/drivers/acpi/apei/ghes.c >> +++ b/drivers/acpi/apei/ghes.c >> @@ -80,6 +80,10 @@ >> ((struct acpi_hest_generic_status *) \ >> ((struct ghes_estatus_node *)(estatus_node) + 1)) >> >> +#define acpi_hest_generic_data_version(gdata) \ >> + (gdata->revision >> 8) > > ... > >> +inline void *acpi_hest_generic_data_payload(struct = >> acpi_hest_generic_data *gdata) >> +{ >> + return acpi_hest_generic_data_version(gdata) >=3D 3 ? >> + (void *)(((struct acpi_hest_generic_data_v300 *)(gdata)) + 1) : >> + gdata + 1; >> +} >> + > > > >> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/efi/cper.c b/drivers/firmware/efi/cper.c >> index d425374..9fa1317 100644 >> --- a/drivers/firmware/efi/cper.c >> +++ b/drivers/firmware/efi/cper.c > >> +#define acpi_hest_generic_data_version(gdata) \ >> + (gdata->revision >> 8) >> + > > ... > >> +static inline void *acpi_hest_generic_data_payload(struct = >> acpi_hest_generic_data *gdata) >> +{ >> + return acpi_hest_generic_data_version(gdata) >=3D 3 ? >> + (void *)(((struct acpi_hest_generic_data_v300 *)(gdata)) + 1) : >> + gdata + 1; >> +} > > Could these go to a header file, so that we don't need duplicate = > definitions of these helpers in > different files ? > I think that should work to avoid duplication. I will move them to a = header file in the next patchset. >> + >> +static void cper_estatus_print_section_v300(const char *pfx, >> + const struct acpi_hest_generic_data_v300 *gdata) >> +{ >> + __u8 hour, min, sec, day, mon, year, century, *timestamp; >> + >> + if (gdata->validation_bits & ACPI_HEST_GEN_VALID_TIMESTAMP) { >> + timestamp =3D (__u8 *)&(gdata->time_stamp); >> + memcpy(&sec, timestamp, 1); >> + memcpy(&min, timestamp + 1, 1); >> + memcpy(&hour, timestamp + 2, 1); >> + memcpy(&day, timestamp + 4, 1); >> + memcpy(&mon, timestamp + 5, 1); >> + memcpy(&year, timestamp + 6, 1); >> + memcpy(¢ury, timestamp + 7, 1); >> + printk("%stime: ", pfx); >> + printk("%7s", 0x01 & *(timestamp + 3) ? "precise" : ""); > > What format is the (timestamp + 3) stored in ? Does it need conversion ? The third byte of the timestamp is currently only used to determine if = the time is precise or not. Bit 0 is used to specify that and the other = bits in this byte are marked as reserved. This is shown in table 247 of = the UEFI spec 2.6: Byte 3: Bit 0 =96 Timestamp is precise if this bit is set and correlates to the = time of the error event. Bit 7:1 =96 Reserved > >> + printk(" %02d:%02d:%02d %02d%02d-%02d-%02d\n", >> + bcd2bin(hour), bcd2bin(min), bcd2bin(sec), >> + bcd2bin(century), bcd2bin(year), bcd2bin(mon), >> + bcd2bin(day)); >> + } > > minor nit: Would it be easier to order/parse the error messages if the = > date > is printed first followed by time ? > > i.e, > 17:20:14 2016-09-15 Mon > vs > 2016-09-15 Mon 17:20:14 > > e.g, people looking at a huge log, looking for logs from a specific = > date might > find the latter more useful to skip the messages. > The latter does seem like it would be better for parsing large logs. I = can rearrange the order in the next patchset. >> +} >> + >> static void cper_estatus_print_section( >> - const char *pfx, const struct acpi_hest_generic_data *gdata, int = >> sec_no) >> + const char *pfx, struct acpi_hest_generic_data *gdata, int sec_no) >> { >> uuid_le *sec_type =3D (uuid_le *)gdata->section_type; >> __u16 severity; >> char newpfx[64]; >> >> + if ((gdata->revision >> 8) >=3D 0x03) > > Could we use the helper defined above ? Yes, I'll change this to use acpi_hest_generic_data_version(gdata) instead. > >> @@ -451,12 +497,22 @@ void cper_estatus_print(const char *pfx, >> printk("%s""event severity: %s\n", pfx, = >> cper_severity_str(severity)); >> data_len =3D estatus->data_length; >> gdata =3D (struct acpi_hest_generic_data *)(estatus + 1); >> + if ((gdata->revision >> 8) >=3D 0x03) > > Same as above, use the macro ? Yes, I'll change this to use acpi_hest_generic_data_version(gdata) instead. > >> + gdata_v3 =3D (struct acpi_hest_generic_data_v300 *)gdata; >> + >> snprintf(newpfx, sizeof(newpfx), "%s%s", pfx, INDENT_SP); >> + >> while (data_len >=3D sizeof(*gdata)) { >> gedata_len =3D gdata->error_data_length; >> cper_estatus_print_section(newpfx, gdata, sec_no); >> - data_len -=3D gedata_len + sizeof(*gdata); >> - gdata =3D (void *)(gdata + 1) + gedata_len; >> + if(gdata_v3) { >> + data_len -=3D gedata_len + sizeof(*gdata_v3); >> + gdata_v3 =3D (void *)(gdata_v3 + 1) + gedata_len; >> + gdata =3D (struct acpi_hest_generic_data *)gdata_v3; >> + } else { >> + data_len -=3D gedata_len + sizeof(*gdata); >> + gdata =3D (void *)(gdata + 1) + gedata_len; >> + } >> sec_no++; >> } > > ... > >> >> @@ -486,15 +543,29 @@ int cper_estatus_check(const struct = >> acpi_hest_generic_status *estatus) >> return rc; >> data_len =3D estatus->data_length; >> gdata =3D (struct acpi_hest_generic_data *)(estatus + 1); >> - while (data_len >=3D sizeof(*gdata)) { >> - gedata_len =3D gdata->error_data_length; >> - if (gedata_len > data_len - sizeof(*gdata)) >> + >> + if ((gdata->revision >> 8) >=3D 0x03) { >> + gdata_v3 =3D (struct acpi_hest_generic_data_v300 *)gdata; >> + while (data_len >=3D sizeof(*gdata_v3)) { >> + gedata_len =3D gdata_v3->error_data_length; >> + if (gedata_len > data_len - sizeof(*gdata_v3)) >> + return -EINVAL; >> + data_len -=3D gedata_len + sizeof(*gdata_v3); >> + gdata_v3 =3D (void *)(gdata_v3 + 1) + gedata_len; >> + } >> + if (data_len) >> + return -EINVAL; >> + } else { >> + while (data_len >=3D sizeof(*gdata)) { >> + gedata_len =3D gdata->error_data_length; >> + if (gedata_len > data_len - sizeof(*gdata)) >> + return -EINVAL; >> + data_len -=3D gedata_len + sizeof(*gdata); >> + gdata =3D (void *)(gdata + 1) + gedata_len; >> + } >> + if (data_len) > > As mentioned in the previous version, would it make sense to add some = > more > helpers to deal with record versions ? We seem to be doing the version = > switch and > code duplication at different places. > > Does the following help ? Thoughts ? > > #define acpi_hest_generic_data_error_length(gdata) (((struct = > acpi_hest_generic_data *)(gdata))->error_data_length) > #define acpi_hest_generic_data_size(gdata) \ > ((acpi_hest_generic_data_version(gdata) >=3D 3) ? \ > sizeof(struct acpi_hest_generic_data_v300) : \ > sizeof(struct acpi_hest_generic_data)) > #define acpi_hest_generic_data_record_size(gdata) > (acpi_hest_generic_data_size(gdata) + \ > acpi_hest_generic_data_error_length(gdata)) > #define acpi_hest_generic_data_next(gdata) \ > ((void *)(gdata) + acpi_hest_generic_data_record_size(gdata)) > > > Suzuki These helpers will definitely help consolidate this code. I will use = these in the next version to remove the code duplication here. Thanks, Tyler -- = Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies, Inc. as an affiliate of Qualcomm Technolo= gies, Inc. Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.