From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 358EE762CD for ; Mon, 15 Apr 2024 15:10:35 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.133.124 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1713193837; cv=none; b=EYj7j8z7KdGYBo2pClT6r7BmgfwNPgPSvJ5B6FrAp7WNLOHT6CZqvxRG7ZegUd3j7sMb5O1xQrV+ONeRfRvUhEsESXiApSbo+q4P5wR6DW765Usy0vBCX9wpCbcqHXZY84LgWeutdk/sDgOXVxcnyrs8dhrueKKCELfpQBsW19g= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1713193837; c=relaxed/simple; bh=zWaFqp45xreSd1kt8H0PrqpcJfPYwloQ5CpoGlW5FJ8=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=Sp5lOOjgBsSBd7f9PB7Jjl6B++3XGOa2nxoVTSInfDvBpbgQc33+y420c4a7k6X4VGJhr/6wV4NBV2bzesstTv7sjgf7CW9VbdTthgAURu0l3dhdYPoYsb30fPSsQh0bz0GlIhAsrg7pNBE6O/5qwBXY+2bd4jYawV/ABAuWaBQ= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b=fnG/ZonH; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.133.124 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="fnG/ZonH" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1713193835; 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:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=2aJKc1qLqZnJWxvdZ9CCWCQa3ouDy8zOEavGI3plEjw=; b=fnG/ZonHp93JGgN8K9LA/mAKgDrKHsQ/2iL0/Bn1kbNa0mePDykmcNUbwf91YxIU/TTeoi tv8ekwLinmHXRu4DtQ/ybPKHbpGqk/bIC49xB1qFd/8sEzIzKdSnyK3HTAy/EcGBY68E22 ofkcRch5G7qymcb7k10wV5omwVTNJLc= Received: from mail-lf1-f72.google.com (mail-lf1-f72.google.com [209.85.167.72]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-68-6cX7SspFMyyVEkFXJx5qow-1; Mon, 15 Apr 2024 11:10:31 -0400 X-MC-Unique: 6cX7SspFMyyVEkFXJx5qow-1 Received: by mail-lf1-f72.google.com with SMTP id 2adb3069b0e04-516d6407352so3160479e87.0 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 2024 08:10:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1713193828; x=1713798628; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:content-language :references:cc:to:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=2aJKc1qLqZnJWxvdZ9CCWCQa3ouDy8zOEavGI3plEjw=; b=sXlzeTgVEwP/kogMpMrxJbJ3cnFlbRagPyU3UPNW2gisi3iwb22qjpINFIyiK0y8jV YwVGcArL5DCot8flL8RdnbMmmEXXJuCI99SMXv9Xad2U76Ajvwb9C4YIkspsQd16emfo 4cHD37ayYqdFla2fXKh67JJtkLfkRr6+I399GAcabm0X16L60BCvbpsS8CKV9x0sT9M5 K4ec4ehWUVD4dhuqYS8THvurTjt+Oohw/5jdeg1qmdn2BAkZ1AftOjwdtpEhmHqfN4fJ byM9K9osS93hBY3QwbXiCQ6Ny+6n2shnR5ZBr8caJ2DwUCu1xrSJvoO14h171I24rb0v xAyQ== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCWgIrjLDxp4iJ3eaMgYE54+bruMtdcVVdQVZ/P5Eg3/hDc1VGZpPS1jJvqVZFUzHzmm9+H9bMMFvFD7QoeRWCPL1VqMmz1WMg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YywcHzHivr1o+fiL8Q2oBVDrUy+jL5t713VeenwGInmaMQzag12 KoFKKLT6lEEWv4Bq9nBwux8twPwhWBdPaQzWdBjFSGSmHb2RXMyxLtS7cphiNmJORAzCqJQ5W7X StzQnRPterZR8X1X7+wqHT7ootesXZ0XC3BSZ0c09zvi5tDVgZay7eCo= X-Received: by 2002:ac2:4d08:0:b0:517:84fd:2343 with SMTP id r8-20020ac24d08000000b0051784fd2343mr6248209lfi.41.1713193828625; Mon, 15 Apr 2024 08:10:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IExaaXlGV0rESBoorCek8bZesfSkRVyMdj0WAYaof5VX8Izy8004klGK7UZXnewro1ZZRR2oQ== X-Received: by 2002:ac2:4d08:0:b0:517:84fd:2343 with SMTP id r8-20020ac24d08000000b0051784fd2343mr6248186lfi.41.1713193828190; Mon, 15 Apr 2024 08:10:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPV6:2001:1c00:c32:7800:5bfa:a036:83f0:f9ec? (2001-1c00-0c32-7800-5bfa-a036-83f0-f9ec.cable.dynamic.v6.ziggo.nl. [2001:1c00:c32:7800:5bfa:a036:83f0:f9ec]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id qs1-20020a170906458100b00a5227c8f0e4sm5154321ejc.89.2024.04.15.08.10.27 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 15 Apr 2024 08:10:27 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2024 17:10:27 +0200 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: patches@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] platform/x86/intel/ifs: Classify error scenarios correctly To: "Joseph, Jithu" , Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan , ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com, markgross@kernel.org Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org, ashok.raj@intel.com, tony.luck@intel.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, ravi.v.shankar@intel.com, patches@lists.linux.dev References: <20240412172349.544064-1-jithu.joseph@intel.com> <20240412172349.544064-2-jithu.joseph@intel.com> <69d360fc-85e4-4a6d-8f08-9f90dd7ec583@linux.intel.com> <57c32cfd-136d-4c72-9f4d-12599b508fb8@intel.com> From: Hans de Goede In-Reply-To: <57c32cfd-136d-4c72-9f4d-12599b508fb8@intel.com> X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Language: en-US, nl Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, Thank you for this patch series. On 4/12/24 9:31 PM, Joseph, Jithu wrote: > Sathya, > > Thanks for reviewing this > > On 4/12/2024 11:32 AM, Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan wrote: >> >> On 4/12/24 10:23 AM, Jithu Joseph wrote: >>> Based on inputs from hardware architects, only "scan signature failures" >>> should be treated as actual hardware/cpu failure. >> >> Instead of just saying input from hardware architects, it would be better >> if you mention the rationale behind it. > > I can reword the first para as below: > > "Scan controller error" means that scan hardware encountered an error > prior to doing an actual test on the target CPU. It does not mean that > there is an actual cpu/core failure. "scan signature failure" indicates > that the test result on the target core did not match the expected value > and should be treated as a cpu failure. > > Current driver classifies both these scenarios as failures. Modify ... I've modified the commit message using the rewording suggested above while merging this patch and I have merged the entire series: Thank you for your patch-series, I've applied the series to my review-hans branch: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/pdx86/platform-drivers-x86.git/log/?h=review-hans Once I've run some tests on this branch the patches there will be added to the platform-drivers-x86/for-next branch and eventually will be included in the pdx86 pull-request to Linus for the next merge-window. Regards, Hans >>> Current driver, in addition, classifies "scan controller error" scenario >>> too as a hardware/cpu failure. Modify the driver to classify this situation >>> with a more appropriate "untested" status instead of "fail" status. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Jithu Joseph >>> Reviewed-by: Tony Luck >>> Reviewe >> >> Code wise it looks good to me. >> >> Reviewed-by: Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan >> > > > Jithu >