On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 01:27:27AM -0700, Jon Pan-Doh wrote: > On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 11:47 AM Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > - Previously we *always* called trace_aer_event(), but now we don't > > in the !info->status case. Maybe an unintentional change? I > > think we should call trace_aer_event() always, or change that in a > > separate patch if we need to. This would always have been simpler > > if trace_aer_event() had been the very first thing in the > > function. > > Good catch. That is an unintentional bug. trace_aer_event() should > always be called. Moved it to the first thing in aer_print_error() in > v4 (same patch as I wasn't sure what justification to put for a > separate commit message other than precursor for ratelimit). I wonder if trace_aer_event() and pci_dev_aer_stats_incr() should be part of the same function since we always do both. But I guess the trace needs a little more information. Minor thing we can worry about later. Bjorn
