On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 7:56 PM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > * Huang Ying <ying.huang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > So why are we not working towards integrating this into our event >> > reporting/handling framework, as i suggested it from day one on when you >> > started posting these patches? >> >> The memory_failure_queue() introduced in this patch is general, that is, it >> can be used not only by ACPI/APEI, but also any other hardware error >> handlers, including your event reporting/handling framework. > > Well, the bit you are steadfastly ignoring is what i have made clear well > before you started adding these facilities: THEY ALREADY EXISTS to a large > degree :-) > > So you were and are duplicating code instead of using and extending existing > event processing facilities. It does not matter one little bit that the code > you added is partly 'generic', it's still overlapping and duplicated. How to do hardware error recovering in your perf framework? IMHO, it can be something as follow: - NMI handler run for the hardware error, where hardware error information is collected and put into a ring buffer, an irq_work is triggered for further work - In irq_work handler, memory_failure_queue() is called to do the real recovering work for recoverable memory error in ring buffer. What's your idea about hardware error recovering in perf? 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
