Re: [GIT PULL] x86/mce fix (ready for 3.6 merge window)

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>]

* Luck, Tony <tony.luck@intel.com> wrote:

> The following changes since commit 6887a4131da3adaab011613776d865f4bcfb5678:
> 
>   Linux 3.5-rc5 (2012-06-30 16:08:57 -0700)
> 
> are available in the git repository at:
> 
>   git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/ras/ras.git tags/please-pull-mce-ripvfix
> 
> for you to fetch changes up to b99c2fc9366d4e32b8d087cd28f6dbf5f7932dae:
> 
>   x86/mce: Need to let kill_proc() send signal to doomed process (2012-07-10 10:18:29 -0700)
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> Fix application level machine check recovery
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> Tony Luck (1):
>       x86/mce: Need to let kill_proc() send signal to doomed process
> 
>  arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce.c |  6 ++++--
>  include/linux/mm.h               |  1 +
>  mm/memory-failure.c              | 10 ++++++----
>  3 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

A couple of commit log details:

 - If it's for v3.6 then the Cc: stable backport is not 
   justified. Either it's for tip:x86/urgent and then we'll 
   merge it straight away, or for tip:x86/mce for v3.6 and then 
   there's no Cc: stable tag.

 - This reference to a commit is a bit unusual:

In commit dad1743e5993f19b3d7e7bd0fb35dc45b5326626
x86/mce: Only restart instruction after machine check recovery if it is safe

   the canonical format is something like:

  In commit dad1743e5993f1 ("x86/mce: Only restart instruction 
  after machine check recovery if it is safe") ...

 - We tend to use such an ordering of tags:

  Signed-off-by: Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>
  Acked-by: Borislav Petkov <borislav.petkov@amd.com>
  Cc: stable@kernel.org    # 3.4+

  I.e. Tested-by and Reported-by tags first (if any), then 
  author SOB, then SOB chain (if any), then Reviewed-by
  and Acked-by, then stable tags, then Cc:s.

  (I fix this up silently for email space patches, for Git pulls
   I cannot do that.)

 - The title is suboptimal:

  x86/mce: Need to let kill_proc() send signal to doomed process

   In titles we prefer proper sentences, starting with a verb, 
   so something like this would do:

  x86/mce: Allow kill_proc() to send signals to doomed process

   Or rather, use a good title that talks about what the change 
   is really about:

  x86/mce: Fix siginfo_t->si_addr value for non-recoverable memory faults

 - (Spelling nitpick: it's not "et. al." but "et al.".)

 - Style nit, this:

       if (mi->restartable == 0)

   is better written as:

       if (!mi->restartable)

   because mi->restartable's role here is not really an integer 
   value, but a boolean in essence.

 - The 'doit' flag was significantly misnamed when kill_procs() 
   was written and now it spreads further, it's a totally opaque 
   name that tells nothing about the role of the flag.

   How about 'force'?

Thanks,

	Ingo