Hi, Thank you for this patch series. On 4/12/24 9:31 PM, Joseph, Jithu wrote: > Sathya, > > Thanks for reviewing this > > On 4/12/2024 11:32 AM, Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan wrote: >> >> On 4/12/24 10:23 AM, Jithu Joseph wrote: >>> Based on inputs from hardware architects, only "scan signature failures" >>> should be treated as actual hardware/cpu failure. >> >> Instead of just saying input from hardware architects, it would be better >> if you mention the rationale behind it. > > I can reword the first para as below: > > "Scan controller error" means that scan hardware encountered an error > prior to doing an actual test on the target CPU. It does not mean that > there is an actual cpu/core failure. "scan signature failure" indicates > that the test result on the target core did not match the expected value > and should be treated as a cpu failure. > > Current driver classifies both these scenarios as failures. Modify ... I've modified the commit message using the rewording suggested above while merging this patch and I have merged the entire series: Thank you for your patch-series, I've applied the series to my review-hans branch: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/pdx86/platform-drivers-x86.git/log/?h=review-hans Once I've run some tests on this branch the patches there will be added to the platform-drivers-x86/for-next branch and eventually will be included in the pdx86 pull-request to Linus for the next merge-window. Regards, Hans >>> Current driver, in addition, classifies "scan controller error" scenario >>> too as a hardware/cpu failure. Modify the driver to classify this situation >>> with a more appropriate "untested" status instead of "fail" status. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Jithu Joseph <jithu.joseph@xxxxxxxxx> >>> Reviewed-by: Tony Luck <tony.luck@xxxxxxxxx> >>> Reviewe >> >> Code wise it looks good to me. >> >> Reviewed-by: Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> > > > Jithu >
