From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Egger Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/MCE: Implement clearbank callback for AMD Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 10:18:07 +0200 Message-ID: <5088F5BF.2090603@amd.com> References: <50782D4B.50607@amd.com> <5087F8B902000078000A3F38@nat28.tlf.novell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <5087F8B902000078000A3F38@nat28.tlf.novell.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Jan Beulich Cc: "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 10/24/12 14:18, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 12.10.12 at 16:46, Christoph Egger wrote: >> +static int k8_need_clearbank_scan(enum mca_source who, uint64_t status) >> +{ >> + switch (who) { >> + case MCA_MCE_SCAN: >> + case MCA_MCE_HANDLER: >> + break; >> + default: >> + return 1; >> + } >> + >> + /* For fatal error, it shouldn't be cleared so that sticky bank >> + * have chance to be handled after reboot by polling. >> + */ >> + if ( (status & MCi_STATUS_UC) && (status & MCi_STATUS_PCC) ) >> + return 0; >> + /* Spurious need clear bank */ >> + if ( !(status & MCi_STATUS_OVER) >> + && (status & MCi_STATUS_UC) && !(status & MCi_STATUS_EN)) >> + return 1; >> + >> + return 1; >> } > > So what's the purpose of first conditionally returning 1, and then > also doing so unconditionally? Do anticipate to insert code between > the two parts within the very near future? Otherwise I'd drop the > whole if() construct. This function is derived from intel_need_clearbank_scan(). I just took over the relevant parts for AMD. Christoph -- ---to satisfy European Law for business letters: Advanced Micro Devices GmbH Einsteinring 24, 85689 Dornach b. Muenchen Geschaeftsfuehrer: Alberto Bozzo Sitz: Dornach, Gemeinde Aschheim, Landkreis Muenchen Registergericht Muenchen, HRB Nr. 43632