On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 10:24:35PM +0530, Naveen N. Rao wrote: > On 2013/10/11 02:32AM, Chen Gong wrote: > > Use trace interface to elaborate all H/W error related > > information. > > > > Signed-off-by: Chen, Gong <gong.chen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > <snip> > > +TRACE_EVENT(extlog_mem_event, > > + TP_PROTO(u32 etype, > > + char *dimm_loc, > > + const uuid_le *fru_id, > > + char *fru_text, > > + u64 error_count, > > + u32 severity, > > + u64 phy_addr, > > + char *mem_loc), > > [Adding Mauro...] > > This looks very similar to the trace event I wrote a while back, > which was similar to the one provided by ghes_edac: > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.pci/24616 > > Seems to me this has the same issues we previously discussed w.r.t > EDAC conflicts... Right, I'm inclined to leave this trace_mc_event in ras_event.h to edac use alone because of all those layers which don't mean whit for GHES and eMCA error sources. And maybe define a trace_mem_event which is shared by GHES and eMCA and not use the edac tracepoint there not load ghes_edac on such systems which have sufficient decoding capability in firmware. Thoughts? -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine. -- -- 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
