From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1755618AbdKOBna (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Tue, 14 Nov 2017 20:43:30 -0500
Received: from szxga04-in.huawei.com ([45.249.212.190]:10924 "EHLO
        szxga04-in.huawei.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1754031AbdKOBnX (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Tue, 14 Nov 2017 20:43:23 -0500
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/mce: add support SRAO reported via CMC check
To: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@intel.com>
References: <1510638911-88703-1-git-send-email-xiexiuqi@huawei.com>
 <20171114185139.oo6dr6opk7nup3or@agluck-desk>
CC: <bp@alien8.de>, <tglx@linutronix.de>, <mingo@redhat.com>,
        <hpa@zytor.com>, <x86@kernel.org>, <linux-edac@vger.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
From: Xie XiuQi <xiexiuqi@huawei.com>
Message-ID: <7180dff1-2e55-5577-85d3-eda288f2be81@huawei.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2017 09:43:07 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20171114185139.oo6dr6opk7nup3or@agluck-desk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Originating-IP: [10.177.19.210]
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0),
        refid=str=0001.0A020203.5A0B9BB5.00C7,ss=1,re=0.000,recu=0.000,reip=0.000,cl=1,cld=1,fgs=0,
        ip=0.0.0.0,
        so=2014-11-16 11:51:01,
        dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32
X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: cfa48222fd9cb7a1850206d1c42e8fe9
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Hi Tony,

On 2017/11/15 2:51, Luck, Tony wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 01:55:11PM +0800, Xie XiuQi wrote:
>> +	/* known AO MCACODs reported via CMC: */
>> +	MCESEV(
>> +		AO, "Action optional: memory scrubbing error",
>> +		SER, MASK(MCI_UC_SAR|MCACOD_SCRUBMSK, MCI_STATUS_UC|MCACOD_SCRUB)
> 
> I think you should check for OVER=0 (as the existing AO cases do).
> If there was a patrol scrub reported by CMCI, and then another UC
> error, we can't safely treat this as an AO ... because we have no
> idea what the second UC error was.

OK, I'll add check for OVER=0 in v2.

-- 
Thanks,
Xie XiuQi

> 
> -Tony
> 
> .
>