On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 11:14:07AM -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> I don't see why should we have those two alternatives, as, at worse
> case (e. g. if ghes_edac can't enrich the APEI data with labels),
> they'll basically provide the very same data to userspace, and the
> EDAC extra overhead is small, on its error report logic.
Well, a couple of reasons.
The first and foremost one is having another layer which needs
registration, etc. because ghes_edac pulls the whole edac core stuff
with it. The thinner we are, the less overhead we cause. And this is
a must for RAS.
Actually, this is a must for all kernel code - the faster we can get
done and the thinner we are, the better. We absolutely definitely don't
want to have a useless layer in the error reporting path just because it
is easier.
This short path will pay out later in error storms and other
resources-constrained situations.
Furthermore, dealing with another edac driver is not trivial for
distros, like going around and telling people that all of a sudden
they need to enable ghes_edac. This is tangential to the issue which
Naveen raised that on some machines, you want not only ghes_edac but the
platform-specific one. Which doesn't work currently and we don't have a
clear solution on how to get it working yet.
Finally, userspace doesn't care where it gets its TP data from as long
as it is there.
> The risk of doing the very same thing on two different places is that
> the logic to encapsulate APEI data into trace_mc_event() would be on
> two separate places. It risks that someone would change one of the
> drivers and forget to apply the very same change on the other, causing
> parse errors on userspace, depending on the source.
We'll make sure that doesn't happen.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine.
--
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
