Re: [PATCH 4/5] PCI-Express AER implemetation: AER core and aerdriver

Andi Kleen
2006-07-12T16:27:05Z

"Zhang, Yanmin" <yanmin_zhang@linux.intel.com> writes:

> With Arjan's comments, I changed EXPORT_SYMBOL to EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL.
> Sorry for flooding your emailbox again. :)

This means that non GPL drivers will reimplement these functions
on their own (which is possible, just ugly) The fallout of them getting that wrong
might be significant.

I would change it back. _GPL should be only for core services, not
for generic driver interfaces.

> --- linux-2.6.17/drivers/pci/pcie/aer/aerdrv_core.c 1970-01-01 08:00:00.000000000 +0800
> +++ linux-2.6.17_aer/drivers/pci/pcie/aer/aerdrv_core.c 2006-07-12 15:47:38.000000000 +0800
> @@ -0,0 +1,737 @@
> +/*
> + * Copyright (C) 2006 Intel
> + * Tom Long Nguyen (tom.l.nguyen@intel.com)
> + * Zhang Yanmin (yanmin.zhang@intel.com)

Comment describing what the file does missing. At least one paragraph
of design rationale would be good

> +
> +config PCIEAER
> + tristate "Root Port Advanced Error Reporting support"
> + depends on PCIEPORTBUS
> + default y
> + help
> + This enables Root Port Advanced Error Reporting (AER) driver
> + support. Error reporting messages sent to Root Port will be
> + handled by PCI Express AER driver.

I hope it's clear from the context this is PCI-E specific?

> --- linux-2.6.17/drivers/pci/pcie/aer/Makefile 1970-01-01 08:00:00.000000000 +0800
> +++ linux-2.6.17_aer/drivers/pci/pcie/aer/Makefile 2006-06-22 16:46:29.000000000 +0800
> @@ -0,0 +1,10 @@
> +#
> +# Makefile for PCI-Express Root Port Advanced Error Reporting Driver
> +#
> +
> +obj-$(CONFIG_PCIEAER) += aerdriver.o
> +aerdrv_acpi-$(CONFIG_ACPI) += aerdrv_acpi.o
> +
> +aerdriver-objs := aerdrv_errprint.o aerdrv_core.o aerdrv.o
> +aerdriver-objs += $(aerdrv_acpi-y)
> +
> --- linux-2.6.17/drivers/pci/pcie/Kconfig 2006-06-22 16:26:43.000000000 +0800
> +++ linux-2.6.17_aer/drivers/pci/pcie/Kconfig 2006-06-22 16:46:29.000000000 +0800
> @@ -34,3 +34,4 @@ config HOTPLUG_PCI_PCIE_POLL_EVENT_MODE
>
> When in doubt, say N.
>
> +source "drivers/pci/pcie/aer/Kconfig"
> --- linux-2.6.17/drivers/pci/pcie/Makefile 2006-06-22 16:26:43.000000000 +0800
> +++ linux-2.6.17_aer/drivers/pci/pcie/Makefile 2006-06-22 16:46:29.000000000 +0800
> @@ -5,3 +5,6 @@
> pcieportdrv-y := portdrv_core.o portdrv_pci.o portdrv_bus.o
>
> obj-$(CONFIG_PCIEPORTBUS) += pcieportdrv.o
> +
> +# Build PCI Express AER if needed
> +obj-$(CONFIG_PCIEAER) += aer/
> --- linux-2.6.17/drivers/pci/pcie/aer/aerdrv_errprint.c 1970-01-01 08:00:00.000000000 +0800
> +++ linux-2.6.17_aer/drivers/pci/pcie/aer/aerdrv_errprint.c 2006-06-22 16:46:29.000000000 +0800
> @@ -0,0 +1,216 @@
> +/*
> + * Copyright (C) 2006 Intel
> + * Tom Long Nguyen (tom.l.nguyen@intel.com)
> + * Zhang Yanmin (yanmin.zhang@intel.com)
> + *

Comment what the code does missing.

At least one paragraph of design rationale would be good.

> + "Unknown Error Bit 22 ", /* Bit Position 22 */
> + "Unknown Error Bit 23 ", /* Bit Position 23 */
> + "Unknown Error Bit 24 ", /* Bit Position 24 */
> + "Unknown Error Bit 25 ", /* Bit Position 25 */
> + "Unknown Error Bit 26 ", /* Bit Position 26 */
> + "Unknown Error Bit 27 ", /* Bit Position 27 */
> + "Unknown Error Bit 28 ", /* Bit Position 28 */
> + "Unknown Error Bit 29 ", /* Bit Position 29 */
> + "Unknown Error Bit 30 ", /* Bit Position 30 */
> + "Unknown Error Bit 31 " /* Bit Position 31 */

Make all the unknown error bits a NULL and use a sprintf in the
decoder instead.

Similar for the following arrays.
> +void aer_print_error(struct pci_dev *dev, struct aer_err_info *info)
> +{
> + char * errmsg;
> + int err_layer, agent;
> +
> + printk(KERN_ERR "+------ PCI-Express Device Error ------+\n");
> + printk(KERN_ERR "Error Severity\t\t: %s\n",
> + aer_error_severity_string[info->severity]);
> +
> + if ( info->status == 0) {
> + printk(KERN_ERR "PCIE Bus Error type\t: (Unaccessible)\n");

KERN_ERR? THis means it will appear on consoles, won't it?
And surely not all these errors are fatal enough to need user attention
immediately and I bet there will be some devices who report these
errors unnecessarily. I would use a lower log level.

Also I would suggest you add something in the documentation
on what the messages mean exactly and how to decode them. I'm sure that will be a FAQ.

-Andi