On Fri, 2017-04-21 at 12:21 -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 3:18 PM, Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@xxxxxxxx
> m> wrote:
> > The check for an MCE being a memory error in the NFIT mce handler
> > was
> > bogus. Fix it to check for the correct MCA status compound error
> > code.
> >
> > Reported-by: Tony Luck <tony.luck@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/acpi/nfit/mce.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/nfit/mce.c b/drivers/acpi/nfit/mce.c
> > index 3ba1c34..23e12a0 100644
> > --- a/drivers/acpi/nfit/mce.c
> > +++ b/drivers/acpi/nfit/mce.c
> > @@ -26,7 +26,7 @@ static int nfit_handle_mce(struct notifier_block
> > *nb, unsigned long val,
> > struct nfit_spa *nfit_spa;
> >
> > /* We only care about memory errors */
> > - if (!(mce->status & MCACOD))
> > + if (!(mce->status & 0xef80) == BIT(7))
>
> Can we get a define for this, or a comment explaining all the magic
> that's happening on that one line?
Yes - also like lkp pointed out, the check isn't correct at all. Let me
figure out what really needs to be done, and I will resend with a better
comment. ��.n��������+%������w��{.n�����{�����ܨ}���Ơz�j:+v�����w����ޙ��&�)ߡ�a����z�ޗ���ݢj��w�f
