sorry fix a typo. On 2018/1/23 17:23, gengdongjiu wrote: >> There are problems with doing this: >> >> Oct. 18, 2017, 10:26 a.m. James Morse wrote: >> | How do SEA and SEI interact? >> | >> | As far as I can see they can both interrupt each other, which isn't something >> | the single in_nmi() path in APEI can handle. I thinks we should fix this >> | first. >> >> [..] >> >> | SEA gets away with a lot of things because its synchronous. SEI isn't. Xie >> | XiuQi pointed to the memory_failure_queue() code. We can use this directly >> | from SEA, but not SEI. (what happens if an SError arrives while we are >> | queueing memory_failure work from an IRQ). >> | >> | The one that scares me is the trace-point reporting stuff. What happens if an >> | SError arrives while we are enabling a trace point? (these are static-keys >> | right?) >> | >> | I don't think we can just plumb SEI in like this and be done with it. >> | (I'm looking at teasing out the estatus cache code from being x86:NMI only. >> | This way we solve the same 'cant do this from NMI context' with the same >> | code'.) >> >> >> I will post what I've got for this estatus-cache thing as an RFC, its not ready >> to be considered yet. Yes, I know you are dong that. Your serial's patch will consider all above things, right? If your patch can be consider that, this patch can based on your patchset. thanks. > >> -- 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
