>-----Original Message----- >From: Bjorn Helgaas [mailto:helgaas@xxxxxxxxxx] >Sent: 24 July 2020 13:54 >To: Shiju Jose <shiju.jose@xxxxxxxxxx> >Cc: linux-acpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-pci@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux- >kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; bp@xxxxxxxxx; >james.morse@xxxxxxx; lenb@xxxxxxxxxx; tony.luck@xxxxxxxxx; >dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx; zhangliguang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; >andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Wangkefeng (OS Kernel Lab) ><wangkefeng.wang@xxxxxxxxxx>; jroedel@xxxxxxx; Linuxarm ><linuxarm@xxxxxxxxxx>; yangyicong <yangyicong@xxxxxxxxxx>; Jonathan >Cameron <jonathan.cameron@xxxxxxxxxx>; tanxiaofei ><tanxiaofei@xxxxxxxxxx> >Subject: Re: [PATCH v13 1/2] ACPI / APEI: Add a notifier chain for unknown >(vendor) CPER records > >On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 09:00:41AM +0000, Shiju Jose wrote: >> >-----Original Message----- >> >From: Bjorn Helgaas [mailto:helgaas@xxxxxxxxxx] >> >Sent: 24 July 2020 00:21 >> >To: Shiju Jose <shiju.jose@xxxxxxxxxx> >> >Cc: linux-acpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-pci@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux- >> >kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; bp@xxxxxxxxx; >> >james.morse@xxxxxxx; lenb@xxxxxxxxxx; tony.luck@xxxxxxxxx; >> >dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx; zhangliguang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; >> >andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Wangkefeng (OS Kernel Lab) >> ><wangkefeng.wang@xxxxxxxxxx>; jroedel@xxxxxxx; Linuxarm >> ><linuxarm@xxxxxxxxxx>; yangyicong <yangyicong@xxxxxxxxxx>; >Jonathan >> >Cameron <jonathan.cameron@xxxxxxxxxx>; tanxiaofei >> ><tanxiaofei@xxxxxxxxxx> >> >Subject: Re: [PATCH v13 1/2] ACPI / APEI: Add a notifier chain for >> >unknown >> >(vendor) CPER records >> > >> >On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 11:39:51AM +0100, Shiju Jose wrote: >> >> CPER records describing a firmware-first error are identified by GUID. >> >> The ghes driver currently logs, but ignores any unknown CPER records. >> >> This prevents describing errors that can't be represented by a >> >> standard entry, that would otherwise allow a driver to recover from >> >> an >> >error. >> >> The UEFI spec calls these 'Non-standard Section Body' (N.2.3 of >> >> version 2.8). >> > >> >> +#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI_APEI_GHES >> >> +/** >> >> + * ghes_register_vendor_record_notifier - register a notifier for >> >> +vendor >> >> + * records that the kernel would otherwise ignore. >> >> + * @nb: pointer to the notifier_block structure of the event handler. >> >> + * >> >> + * return 0 : SUCCESS, non-zero : FAIL */ int >> >> +ghes_register_vendor_record_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb); >> >> + >> >> +/** >> >> + * ghes_unregister_vendor_record_notifier - unregister the >> >> +previously >> >> + * registered vendor record notifier. >> >> + * @nb: pointer to the notifier_block structure of the vendor >> >> +record >> >handler. >> >> + */ >> >> +void ghes_unregister_vendor_record_notifier(struct notifier_block >> >> +*nb); #else static inline int >> >> +ghes_register_vendor_record_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb) { >> >> + return -ENODEV; >> >> +} >> >> + >> >> +static inline void ghes_unregister_vendor_record_notifier(struct >> >> +notifier_block *nb) { } >> > >> >If you made CONFIG_PCIE_HISI_ERR depend on CONFIG_ACPI_APEI_GHES, >> >you'd be able to get rid of these stubs, wouldn't you? It doesn't >> >look like there's any point in building pcie-hisi-error.c at all >> >unless CONFIG_ACPI_APEI_GHES is enabled. >> >> The stub is added because this interface is expected to use by the >> other drivers as well. Some drivers may not want add the build depend >> on the CONFIG_ACPI_APEI_GHES if the error reporting has less priority >> in the driver. However we can add dependency on >CONFIG_ACPI_APEI_GHES >> for building pcie-hisi-error.c. > >The usual route is to add stubs when they're needed, not just in anticipation >of some need that may never materialize. ok. I will change in the next version. Thanks, Shiju
