On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 8:40 AM, Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 08:28:05AM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>> > @@ -186,7 +186,7 @@ static int erst_exec_stall(struct apei_exec_context *ctx,
>> >
>> > if (ctx->value > FIRMWARE_MAX_STALL) {
>> > if (!in_nmi())
>> > - pr_warning(FW_WARN ERST_PFX
>> > + pr_warn(FW_WARN
>> > "Too long stall time for stall instruction: %llx.\n",
>>
>> You didn't change this part, but this and similar messages look less
>> useful than they could be. We're printing in hex, but there's no
>> indication in the output (no "0x" prefix). And there's no instruction
>> pointer or anything to help connect this back to the source of the
>> problem.
>
> Sounds like we don't want to print ctx->value at all but simply signal
> about the stall? Or?
If I were the firmware developer and got a report about this message,
I think the information I would want is ctx->ip, so I could identify
the corresponding source code. But I don't know much about the ERST
interpreter, so I don't know if "ctx->ip" is the right place to look.
Maybe there's a method name or table name that would be needed in
addition.
It just seems like "ERST: Too long stall time for stall instruction:
4732." all by itself doesn't really contain any actionable
information.
Bjorn
--
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
