B1;2401;0cLen, On Mon, 25 Oct 2010, Len Brown wrote: > > NAKed-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> > > Everybody knows that Linux has a lot to learn about RAS. > > I think to catch up, we need to play to Linux's strengths > of continuous improvement. If we halt patches in this area > then we could wait forever for the "perfect design". it's not about perfect design. It's about creating new user space ABIs. The patches introduce another error reporting user space ABI with an ad hoc "fits the needs" design. This is my major point of objection. I agree that Linux needs improvement on the RAS side, but does this lack of features justify a new user space ABI which is totally disconnected to existing RAS facilities ? No, it does not. It's not our problem that Intel wasted time on creating another character device driver to report errors to user space. The time spent to do so would have been sufficient to do a proper integration into the existing infrastructure. I would not care at all if these patches would just introduce some weird in kernel interfaces as we can clean that up at will. But introducing a new user space ABI is setting the disconnect of RAS related facilities into stone. >From Kconfig: EDAC is designed to report errors in the core system. These are low-level errors that are reported in the CPU or supporting chipset or other subsystems: memory errors, cache errors, PCI errors, thermal throttling, etc.. If unsure, select 'Y'. So please explain why your error reporting is so different from the above that it justifies a separate facility. And you better come up with a real good explanation other than we looked at EDAC and it did not fit our needs. Thanks, tglx -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
