* Luck, Tony <tony.l...@intel.com> wrote:
> The following changes since commit 6887a4131da3adaab011613776d865f4bcfb5678:
>
> Linux 3.5-rc5 (2012-06-30 16:08:57 -0700)
>
> are available in the git repository at:
>
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/ras/ras.git
> tags/please-pull-mce-ripvfix
>
> for you to fetch changes up to b99c2fc9366d4e32b8d087cd28f6dbf5f7932dae:
>
> x86/mce: Need to let kill_proc() send signal to doomed process (2012-07-10
> 10:18:29 -0700)
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> Fix application level machine check recovery
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> Tony Luck (1):
> x86/mce: Need to let kill_proc() send signal to doomed process
>
> arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce.c | 6 ++++--
> include/linux/mm.h | 1 +
> mm/memory-failure.c | 10 ++++++----
> 3 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
A couple of commit log details:
- If it's for v3.6 then the Cc: stable backport is not
justified. Either it's for tip:x86/urgent and then we'll
merge it straight away, or for tip:x86/mce for v3.6 and then
there's no Cc: stable tag.
- This reference to a commit is a bit unusual:
In commit dad1743e5993f19b3d7e7bd0fb35dc45b5326626
x86/mce: Only restart instruction after machine check recovery if it is safe
the canonical format is something like:
In commit dad1743e5993f1 ("x86/mce: Only restart instruction
after machine check recovery if it is safe") ...
- We tend to use such an ordering of tags:
Signed-off-by: Tony Luck <tony.l...@intel.com>
Acked-by: Borislav Petkov <borislav.pet...@amd.com>
Cc: sta...@kernel.org # 3.4+
I.e. Tested-by and Reported-by tags first (if any), then
author SOB, then SOB chain (if any), then Reviewed-by
and Acked-by, then stable tags, then Cc:s.
(I fix this up silently for email space patches, for Git pulls
I cannot do that.)
- The title is suboptimal:
x86/mce: Need to let kill_proc() send signal to doomed process
In titles we prefer proper sentences, starting with a verb,
so something like this would do:
x86/mce: Allow kill_proc() to send signals to doomed process
Or rather, use a good title that talks about what the change
is really about:
x86/mce: Fix siginfo_t->si_addr value for non-recoverable memory faults
- (Spelling nitpick: it's not "et. al." but "et al.".)
- Style nit, this:
if (mi->restartable == 0)
is better written as:
if (!mi->restartable)
because mi->restartable's role here is not really an integer
value, but a boolean in essence.
- The 'doit' flag was significantly misnamed when kill_procs()
was written and now it spreads further, it's a totally opaque
name that tells nothing about the role of the flag.
How about 'force'?
Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
