On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 10:15:27AM -0600, Baicar, Tyler wrote:
> I think the better thing to do in this case is still send the ack. If
> ghes_read_estatus() fails, then
> either we are unable to read the estatus or the estatus is empty/invalid.
Right now we silently handle that failure of ghes_read_estatus(). That
might be hiding some Linux bugs if we are calling ghes_proc() in cases
where we shouldn't.
Perhaps we should have something like this, so if systems do start acting
weirdly there will be a note that we took this path:
rc = ghes_read_estatus(ghes, 0);
if (rc) {
pr_notice("surprise failure reading ghes estatus\n");
goto out;
}
> If we do not send the ack, then we will be in a scenario where FW will not
> send any more errors.
We might ACK something that the firmware didn't send, which may
lead to other problems.
> I think it would be better to still have the FW send the errors and kernel
> complain about issues with
But I agree with this. We should send the ACK. Luckliy this doesn't have
a long legacy problem because the whole ACK mechanism is a new thing. So
we only have to worry about GHESv2 supporting BIOS.
-Tony
--
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
