> 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. Well it didn't fit the needs at all. Is that not enough, Mr Inquisitor? Really if you want to nack and maintain and design things you need to do a bit more than just arguing from two lines of high level description. EDAC enumerates hardware and exports some hardware registers and decodes a few errors in a format into the kernel log that is hard to impossible to post-process. APEI does nothing of that, so it doesn't fit into EDAC. perf does small parts of it, but a lot of things that are needed it doesn't do either. And for the things it does it's incredible overkill in terms of code size, overhead etc. for the task at hand. Basically the only facility in perf that could be reused is a simple message passing layer, which is only a few tens lines of code anyways, but only at the cost of doing a lot of changes to get the right semantics out of it. The main interface in APEI right now is to manage fatal errors after reboot. Short of making it a file system, which didn't really fit either, there's no existing interface that handles that in a half way sensible way. There's some other stuff but it's reasonably small too. -Andi -- 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
