On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 03:28:18PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote: > Yeah, we don't have to always adhere to the spec if we feel it doesn't > make any sense. A lot of those fields above are purely useless and we > shouldn't carry them blindly to the outside. > > For example, we don't need to carry cpu_brand[128] to the outside for > *every* error. Who even came up with this crap, is beyond me??? It's > like the cpu changes brand on every other error or what? You harvest > this info only *once* from /proc/cpuinfo. cpu_version too. And so on and > so on... > > Please sanity-check stuff like that before hardcoding it into the > tracepoint. If it is in the spec it doesn't always mean it makes sense. > We need to carry out only the minimum amount of information of each > error which is actually getting used in userspace, for additional RAS > actions. Carrying fat blobs just because the spec says so is simply > wrong. > I agree. But at least for memory, I want to show them all. Maybe requestor_id/responder_id/target_id are not so important. But in reality, I've never seen they are valid. So just leave them there.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
