> meminfo is rather top-level and important. Is this data sufficiently > important to justify a place there? There is already "HardwareCorrupted" which is similar, but for errors reported by ECC, so it makes sense to have both in single place. > Please describe the value. The use-case(s). Why would people want > this? When running large fleet of devices without ECC RAM it's currently not easy to do bulk monitoring for memory corruption. You have to parse dmesg, but that's ring buffer so the error might disappear after some time. In general i do not consider dmesg to be great API to query RAM status. In several companies i've seen such errors remain undetected and cause issues for way too long. So i think it makes sense to provide monitoring API, so that we can safely detect and act upon them. > Comment layout is unconventional. Fixed in PATCH v2 > Coding style is unconventional (white spaces). > I expect this code would look much cleaner if some temporaries were used. Fixed in PATCH v2 > I don't understand this logic anyway. Why not just print the value of > early_memtest_bad_size>>10 and be done with it. I think 0 should be reported only when there was no error found at all. If memtest detect 256 corrupt bytes it would report 0 kB without such logic. Rounding down to 0 like that is not a good idea in my opinion, because it will hide the fact something is wrong with the RAM in such case. Therefore i've added logic that prevents rounding down to 0. > The name implies a bool, but the comment says otherwise. Fixed in PATCH v2 > It's a counter, but it's used as a boolean. Why not make it bool, and do Fixed in PATCH v2 > Also, your email client is replacing tabs with spaces. Fixed in PATCH v2
