From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757489Ab1LNQHR (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Dec 2011 11:07:17 -0500 Received: from s15228384.onlinehome-server.info ([87.106.30.177]:43545 "EHLO mail.x86-64.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756583Ab1LNQHO (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Dec 2011 11:07:14 -0500 Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 17:07:02 +0100 From: Borislav Petkov To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Tony Luck , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Huang, Ying" , Hidetoshi Seto Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] HWPOISON: clean up memory_failure() vs. __memory_failure() Message-ID: <20111214160702.GH23589@aftab> References: <20111214074749.GD25232@elte.hu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20111214074749.GD25232@elte.hu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 08:47:49AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > -/* dummy to break dependency. actual code is in mm/memory-failure.c */ > > -void __attribute__((weak)) memory_failure(unsigned long pfn, int vector) > > +#ifndef CONFIG_MEMORY_FAILURE > > +int memory_failure(unsigned long pfn, int vector, int flags) > > { > > printk(KERN_ERR "Action optional memory failure at %lx ignored\n", pfn); > > Btw., while at it, could we phrase this message in a more > obvious way to users, such as 'Non-fatal memory failure at %lx > ignored'? Yeah, that's might not be as correct as we want it to be. AO means it is an uncorrectable error, i.e. it will become fatal if we'd consumed it, but it isn't that now because we just saw it passing by in the cacheline... Maybe "Fatal, unconsumed error ignored..." -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. Advanced Micro Devices GmbH Einsteinring 24, 85609 Dornach GM: Alberto Bozzo Reg: Dornach, Landkreis Muenchen HRB Nr. 43632 WEEE Registernr: 129 19551