On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 09:15:42PM -0500, Chen, Gong wrote: > Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 21:15:42 -0500 > From: "Chen, Gong" <gong.chen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > To: Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxxxx> > Cc: tony.luck@xxxxxxxxx, naveen.n.rao@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, > linux-acpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] ACPI, APEI, GHES: Cleanup ghes codes for memory > error handling > User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) > > On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 08:23:35AM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote: > > Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 08:23:35 +0100 > > From: Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxxxx> > > To: "Chen, Gong" <gong.chen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: tony.luck@xxxxxxxxx, naveen.n.rao@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, > > linux-acpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] ACPI, APEI, GHES: Cleanup ghes codes for memory > > error handling > > User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) > > > > On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 01:54:57AM -0500, Chen, Gong wrote: > > > In this patch so-called cleanup includes an implied PFN check for UC > > > error but missed in current codes. > > > > Right, I was about to look at it. You probably should add this to the > > commit message so that it is clear. > > > > How about this: > > Add proper PFN validity check for UC error and cleanup the code logic > to make it simpler and cleaner. > > If OK and reasonable for this patch, would you mind helping to update the > introduction in the patch before merging it? Hi, Boris Will you pick up this patch in your RAS request pull?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
