On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 07:51:59PM -0400, Chen, Gong wrote:
> On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 01:05:21PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > > +const char *cper_mem_err_type_str(unsigned int etype)
> > > {
> > > - if (mem->validation_bits & CPER_MEM_VALID_ERROR_STATUS)
> > > - printk("%s""error_status: 0x%016llx\n", pfx, mem->error_status);
> > > - if (mem->validation_bits & CPER_MEM_VALID_PA)
> > > - printk("%s""physical_address: 0x%016llx\n",
> > > - pfx, mem->physical_addr);
> > > - if (mem->validation_bits & CPER_MEM_VALID_PA_MASK)
> > > - printk("%s""physical_address_mask: 0x%016llx\n",
> >
> > The physical address mask is still not part of the tracepoint as a u8 as
> > we talked.
> >
> I thought out discussion is only for trace part. But it is OK to me to
> make whole style aligned.
No, I'm not talking about style - I'm talking about adding the physical address
mask to the tracepoint call:
+TRACE_EVENT(extlog_mem_event,
+ TP_PROTO(u32 etype,
+ const uuid_le *fru_id,
+ u64 error_count,
Btw, is that the error_count we're reporting?? You surely can't claim
that we'll ever report 2^64-1 errors, right?
I'd make that u32 and I'd call it
u32 error_number;
as it is a counter we're incrementing.
+ u32 severity,
That severity can surely be u8 - we can't have 2^32-1 severities in any
normal case - I see only 5. I'm sure 256 is plenty.
And now that we slimmed some of those insanely-sized members, we can add
u8 pa_mask_lsb
or something to that effect.
Makes sense?
+ char *dimm_info,
+ char *pa_info,
+ char *mem_loc,
+ char *fru_text),
+TRACE_EVENT(extlog_mem_event,
--
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
