On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 09:39:15AM -0500, Alex G. wrote:
> No, the problem is with the current approach, not with mine. The problem
> is trying to handle the error outside of the existing handler. That's a
> no-no, IMO.
Let me save you some time: until you come up with a proper solution for
*all* PCIe errors so that the kernel can correctly decide what to do for
each error based on its actual severity, consider this NAKed.
I don't care about outside or inside of the handler - this thing needs
to be done properly and not just to serve your particular use case of
abrupt removal of devices causing PCIe errors, and punish the rest.
I especially don't want to have the case where a PCIe error is *really*
fatal and then we noodle in some handlers debating about the severity
because it got marked as recoverable intermittently and end up causing
data corruption on the storage device. Here's a real no-no for ya.
--
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
