On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 11:31:06AM -0400, Sinan Kaya wrote:
> I see. We should probably try to do something only if GHES_SEV_CORRECTED or
> GHES_SEV_RECOVERABLE.
>
> If somebody wants to crash the system with GHES_SEV_PANIC, there is no point
> in doing additional work.
Makes sense.
Whatever we do, I'd like to have this all nicely documented *why* we're
doing the recovery policy we're doing.
> Sounds good. Do you still want to do PCIe recovery in the case of
> GHES_SEV_PANIC or if some FW returns GHES_SEV_NO?
So I read GHES_SEV_PANIC as: we should panic and stop any processing
whatsoever ASAP in order to avoid further error propagation. So doing
recovery there might *actually* be a bad idea.
GHES_SEV_NO would map to AER_CORRECTABLE and I think that would mean,
print the error to let the user know but no need to recover because no
harm was done.
I *think*.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
SUSE Linux GmbH, GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
--
--
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
