On 10/15/2013 10:30 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
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?
I thought the primary problem was the conflict with edac core itself.
So, if I'm not mistaken, we would have to prevent all edac drivers from
loading.
Thanks,
Naveen
--
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
