From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc/pseries: Make request_ras_irqs() available to other pseries code From: Michael Ellerman To: Mark Nelson In-Reply-To: <201005191635.43544.markn@au1.ibm.com> References: <201005172233.01183.markn@au1.ibm.com> <1274186451.26143.8.camel@concordia> <201005191635.43544.markn@au1.ibm.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-rGBuZTYM+pui+DGChBAv" Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 16:35:54 +1000 Message-ID: <1274250954.7574.1.camel@concordia> Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: Tseng-hui Lin , engebret@us.ibm.com, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org Reply-To: michael@ellerman.id.au List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , --=-rGBuZTYM+pui+DGChBAv Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, 2010-05-19 at 16:35 +1000, Mark Nelson wrote: > Hi Michael, >=20 > Thanks for looking over these patches! .. > >=20 > > Existing code I know, but the error handling in here is a little lax, > > what's not going to work if we miss some or all of the interrupts? >=20 > That's a good point. For the existing code, if we miss an EPOW event > it just means that the event won't be logged (as that's all we do with > those events at the moment, although there is a comment saying > that it should be fixed to take appropriate action depending upon the > type of power failure); but it's a bigger problem if we miss one of the > RAS errors because then we could miss a fatal event that we should halt > the machine on. And for the upcoming IO events it's even worse as we'd > miss an interrupt from the device... Yeah that's what I was thinking. > I would do it in a follow-on patch rather than this one, but what would > be a good course of action if we can't request the interrupt? Yes a follow on patch is the way to do it. There shouldn't be that many reasons the request fails, other than ENOMEM, or broken device tree perhaps. It's definitely worth a WARN_ON(), people notice those at least. cheers --=-rGBuZTYM+pui+DGChBAv Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAkvzhscACgkQdSjSd0sB4dKwfQCfULwphstcjszDJnBV04GNnKDQ sAcAoIWxPXpWFvKWIteeZjLdeNkrTis3 =Wrlc -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-rGBuZTYM+pui+DGChBAv--