[PATCH 1/2] Add HW_ERR printk prefix for hardware error logging

[PATCH 1/2] Add HW_ERR printk prefix for hardware error logging

[Huang Ying]

This makes hardware error related log in printk log more explicit. So
that the users can report it to hardware vendor instead of LKML or
software vendor.

Signed-off-by: Huang Ying <ying.huang@intel.com>
---
 include/linux/kernel.h |    7 +++++++
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)

--- a/include/linux/kernel.h
+++ b/include/linux/kernel.h
@@ -247,6 +247,13 @@ extern struct pid *session_of_pgrp(struc
 #define FW_WARN		"[Firmware Warn]: "
 #define FW_INFO		"[Firmware Info]: "
 
+/*
+ * HW_ERR
+ * Add this to a message for hardware errors, so that user can report
+ * it to hardware vendor instead of LKML or software vendor.
+ */
+#define HW_ERR		"[Hardware Error]: "
+
 #ifdef CONFIG_PRINTK
 asmlinkage int vprintk(const char *fmt, va_list args)
 	__attribute__ ((format (printf, 1, 0)));

[PATCH 1/2] Add HW_ERR printk prefix for hardware error logging

[Huang Ying]

This makes hardware error related log in printk log more explicit. So
that the users can report it to hardware vendor instead of LKML or
software vendor.

Signed-off-by: Huang Ying <ying.huang@intel.com>
---
 include/linux/kernel.h |    7 +++++++
 1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)

diff --git a/include/linux/kernel.h b/include/linux/kernel.h
index 8317ec4..3bf740b 100644
--- a/include/linux/kernel.h
+++ b/include/linux/kernel.h
@@ -247,6 +247,13 @@ extern struct pid *session_of_pgrp(struct pid *pgrp);
 #define FW_WARN		"[Firmware Warn]: "
 #define FW_INFO		"[Firmware Info]: "
 
+/*
+ * HW_ERR
+ * Add this to a message for hardware errors, so that user can report
+ * it to hardware vendor instead of LKML or software vendor.
+ */
+#define HW_ERR		"[Hardware Error]: "
+
 #ifdef CONFIG_PRINTK
 asmlinkage int vprintk(const char *fmt, va_list args)
 	__attribute__ ((format (printf, 1, 0)));

Re: [PATCH 1/2] Add HW_ERR printk prefix for hardware error logging

[Andrew Morton]

On Tue, 08 Jun 2010 14:35:38 +0800
Huang Ying <ying.huang@intel.com> wrote:

> This makes hardware error related log in printk log more explicit. So
> that the users can report it to hardware vendor instead of LKML or
> software vendor.
> 

Spose so.  Some additional words explaining why you think this would
result in an improved kernel would help here.  Are you seeing
misdirected problem reports?  Are we missing out on opportunities to
fix hardware?  What is driving for this change?  Will it bring out some
improvement in something which you're seeing within Intel or was it
just a random hey-lets-try-this thing?

The kernel's whole approach to messaging is pretty haphazard and lame
and sad.  There have been various proposals to improve the usefulness
and to rationally categorise things in way which are more useful to
operators, but nothing seems to ever get over the line.

> ---
>  include/linux/kernel.h |    7 +++++++
>  1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/kernel.h b/include/linux/kernel.h
> index 8317ec4..3bf740b 100644
> --- a/include/linux/kernel.h
> +++ b/include/linux/kernel.h
> @@ -247,6 +247,13 @@ extern struct pid *session_of_pgrp(struct pid *pgrp);
>  #define FW_WARN		"[Firmware Warn]: "
>  #define FW_INFO		"[Firmware Info]: "
>  
> +/*
> + * HW_ERR
> + * Add this to a message for hardware errors, so that user can report
> + * it to hardware vendor instead of LKML or software vendor.
> + */
> +#define HW_ERR		"[Hardware Error]: "

I'm trying to think of a rational reason for capitalising "Error", and
failing.

Oh well, that's what the other strings do and the kernel already stands
as a punctuation/grammar how-not-to guide. ho hum.

Re: [PATCH 1/2] Add HW_ERR printk prefix for hardware error logging

[Huang Ying]

On Fri, 2010-06-11 at 07:46 +0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Jun 2010 14:35:38 +0800
> Huang Ying <ying.huang@intel.com> wrote:
> 
> > This makes hardware error related log in printk log more explicit. So
> > that the users can report it to hardware vendor instead of LKML or
> > software vendor.
> > 
> 
> Spose so.  Some additional words explaining why you think this would
> result in an improved kernel would help here.  Are you seeing
> misdirected problem reports?  Are we missing out on opportunities to
> fix hardware?  What is driving for this change?  Will it bring out some
> improvement in something which you're seeing within Intel or was it
> just a random hey-lets-try-this thing?

It is said by Andi Kleen that many users report Machine Check hardware
error message as software error to him or software vendor instead of as
hardware error to hardware vendor. This does not help much for the users
to resolve their problem. So I think it is better to make the kernel
hardware error log more explicit for these users.

Best Regards,
Huang Ying