From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753426Ab0I1PjL (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Sep 2010 11:39:11 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:34650 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751401Ab0I1PjK (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Sep 2010 11:39:10 -0400 Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 11:38:54 -0400 From: Don Zickus To: Huang Ying Cc: Robert Richter , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Andi Kleen Subject: Re: [PATCH -v2 3/7] x86, NMI, Rename memory parity error to PCI SERR error Message-ID: <20100928153854.GM26290@redhat.com> References: <1285549026-5008-1-git-send-email-ying.huang@intel.com> <1285549026-5008-3-git-send-email-ying.huang@intel.com> <20100927080106.GA32222@erda.amd.com> <1285576760.20791.70.camel@yhuang-dev> <20100927090056.GJ13563@erda.amd.com> <20100927153315.GB26290@redhat.com> <20100927164502.GS13563@erda.amd.com> <1285637617.20791.146.camel@yhuang-dev> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1285637617.20791.146.camel@yhuang-dev> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-08-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 09:33:37AM +0800, Huang Ying wrote: > On Tue, 2010-09-28 at 00:45 +0800, Robert Richter wrote: > > > > > Ok. I will add CPU ID in message. Because we know the reason, I don't > > > > > think we need the reason in message. > > > > > > > > You only know that bit 7 is set, not the rest. As this is an error > > > > message we should provide as much information as possible. > > > > > > Well, what other info do we know besides that bit being set? (I wish we > > > had more, but I don't think we do) > > > > We should keep printing the reason byte as it did before. > > The reason is printed before because mem_parity_error is treated as > something like unknown reason. And iochk_error is treated as known > reason and will not print the reason byte. Please the check the original > code. > > But now we treat pci_serr_error (renamed from mem_parity_error) as known > reason. So it is not necessary to print the reason byte. I suggest to > print the reason byte only if (!(reason & 0xc0) && reason), where the > reason is really unknown. So you are just matching the iochk_error. I understand your reasoning. Yesterday I thought you changed the unknown_nmi_error code. I guess I don't see it as a problem, but I'll let Robert chime in. Cheers, Don