From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755776Ab1ATONg (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Jan 2011 09:13:36 -0500 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:33946 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755691Ab1ATONe (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Jan 2011 09:13:34 -0500 Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 15:11:43 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Borislav Petkov , huang ying , Peter Zijlstra , Andrew Morton , Huang Ying , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Andi Kleen , Linus Torvalds , Chris Mason , "Luck, Tony" Subject: Re: [PATCH -v10 0/4] Lock-less list Message-ID: <20110120141143.GA17272@elte.hu> References: <1295484358.15213.25.camel@yhuang-dev> <20110119165247.cca2f434.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <1295520247.28776.152.camel@laptop> <1295522876.28776.158.camel@laptop> <20110120121455.GA7680@elte.hu> <20110120130625.GA14436@elte.hu> <20110120133621.GA314@a1.tnic> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20110120133621.GA314@a1.tnic> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-08-17) X-ELTE-SpamScore: -2.0 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-2.0 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.5 -2.0 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Borislav Petkov wrote: > + Tony. > > On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 02:06:25PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > * huang ying wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 8:14 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > > > > > * huang ying wrote: > > > > > > > >> > But will all that stuff be accepted? Please stop sending infrastructure bits and > > > >> > focus on your larger RAS picture, once you have consensus on that from all > > > >> > parties involved, then, and only then, does it make sense to submit everything, > > > >> > including infrastructure. > > > >> > > > >> I am not sending hardware error reporting infrastructure.  As far as I know, Linus > > > >> and Andrew suggest to use printk for hardware error reporting.  And now, I just > > > >> try to write APEI driver and reporting hardware error with printk.  Is it > > > >> acceptable?  Do you have some other idea about hardware error reporting? > > > > > > > > Erm, how could you possible have missed the perf based RAS daemon work of Boris, > > > > which we've pointed out about half a dozen times already? > > > > > > Even if there is some other hardware error reporting infrastructure > > > such as perf based, I think we still need printk too. After all, as > > > Linus pointed out, printk is the most popular error reporting > > > mechanism so far. Do you think so? > > > > Of course, that's why the upstream EDAC code uses printk too. In fact it does all > > sorts of in-kernel decoding to make the printk output more useful - the /dev/mcelog > > method of pushing all decoding to user-space is fundamentally flawed. > > True story. And yet google folk still do that, unfortunately: > https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/1/10/419 I wouldnt worry about that too much - such uses are extremely isolated. If we give RAS functionality that gives the limited capabilities of /dev/mcelog and much more then the migration path is clear towards the superior solution. Thanks, Ingo