On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 12:52:42PM +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:
If so, it has been there already. Maybe you should check patch 5/7. I merge
pa/pa_mask into pa_info as a whole to avoid too much calculation/logic in
trace.
> +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;
Fine.
>
> as it is a counter we're incrementing.
>
> + u32 severity,
Fine.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
