On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 12:22:09PM -0600, Baicar, Tyler wrote: > I guess it's not really needed. It just may be useful considering there can > be numerous error info structures, numerous context info structures, and a > variable length vendor information section. I can move this print to only in > the length check failure cases. And? Why does the user care? I mean, it is good for debugging when you wanna see you're parsing the error info data properly but otherwise it doesn't improve the error reporting one bit. > Because these are part of the error information structure. I wouldn't think > FW would populate error information structures that are different versions > in the same processor error, but it could be possible from the spec (at > least once there are different versions of the table). Same argument as above. > There is an error information 64 bit value in the ARM processor error > information structure. (UEFI spec 2.6 table 261) So that's IP-dependent and explained in the following tables. Any plans on decoding that too? > Why's that? Dumping this vendor specific error information is similar to the > unrecognized CPER section reporting which is also meant for vendor specific > information https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/4/18/751 And how do those naked bytes help the user understand the error happening? Even in your example you have: [ 140.739210] {1}[Hardware Error]: 00000000: 4d415201 4d492031 453a4d45 435f4343 .RAM1 IMEM:ECC_C [ 140.739214] {1}[Hardware Error]: 00000010: 53515f45 44525f42 00000000 00000000 E_QSB_RD........ Which looks like some correctable ECC DRAM error and is actually begging to be decoded in a human-readable form. So let's do that completely and not dump partially decoded information. -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply. -- 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
