On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 06:07:56PM +0530, Naveen N. Rao wrote:
> >@@ -624,6 +641,9 @@ void machine_check_poll(enum mcp_flags flags, mce_banks_t *b)
> > (m.status & (mca_cfg.ser ? MCI_STATUS_S : MCI_STATUS_UC)))
> > continue;
> >
> >+ if (mce_ext_err_print)
> >+ mce_ext_err_print(NULL, m.extcpu, i);
> >+
>
> Can we use the notifier chain we already have:
> mce_register_decode_chain()? EDAC uses this and I'm wondering if it
> is a good fit here. As an added bonus, it seems to honor dont_log_ce
> option as well.
Hmm, that's a good question you raise: but the more important question
is, do you guys - Gong and Tony - want to replace the logging we're
already doing, i.e. mce_log() with extlog or not.
Because if you want to replace the current logging you actually have to
exit machine_check_poll() after having done mce_ext_err_print() so that
the rest of the chain doesn't see the error.
And, does mce_ext_err_print only report DRAM ECC errors or other error
types too?
Btw, if we keep both, then we're going to have two tracepoints -
trace_mce_record() in mce_log() and this one - issuing each a record for
the same event. Which is not really what we want I'd say...
Thanks.
--
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
