On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 8:02 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, 2010-11-19 at 19:54 +0800, huang ying wrote: >> >> On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 7:22 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Fri, 2010-11-19 at 16:10 +0800, Huang Ying wrote: >> >> Hi, Len, >> >> >> >> This is used by APEI ERST and GEHS. But it is a generic hardware >> >> error reporting mechanism and can be used by other hardware error >> >> reporting mechanisms such as EDAC, PCIe AER, Machine Check, etc. >> >> >> >> The patchset is split from the original APEI patchset to make it >> >> explicit that this is a generic mechanism, not APEI specific bits. >> >> >> >> [PATCH 1/2] Generic hardware error reporting mechanism >> >> [PATCH 2/2] Hardware error record persistent support >> > >> > You call it generic, does that mean the EDAC guys agree, does it work on >> > AMD and IA64? >> >> I call it "generic", because it can be used by EDAC, PCIe AER, Machine >> Check, etc to report hardware errors, and it can work on ÂAMD and >> IA64. > > 1) that's not a complete answer -- I asked to the EDAC guys agree? Have > you even tried talking to them? I have talked with Mauro during LPC. We all agree that we need a generic hardware error reporting interface. And now, I want to talk with all interested parties with code. > and 2) 'can' is not the right word here, I though we'd all agreed to > talk about this and agree on some approach before littering the kernel > with tiny special case interfaces.. which this will be if EDAC and > others don't agree with you. > > So I want a firm agreement of all parties interested that this is the > way forward, if not you already have my NAK. Why not talk about the code? Which it can do, which it can not do? Why not talk about the requirement? What do we need? Best Regards, Huang Ying -- 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
