On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 10:24:35PM +0530, Naveen N. Rao wrote:
> On 2013/10/11 02:32AM, Chen Gong wrote:
> > Use trace interface to elaborate all H/W error related
> > information.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Chen, Gong <gong.c...@linux.intel.com>
> > ---
> <snip>
> > +TRACE_EVENT(extlog_mem_event,
> > + TP_PROTO(u32 etype,
> > + char *dimm_loc,
> > + const uuid_le *fru_id,
> > + char *fru_text,
> > + u64 error_count,
> > + u32 severity,
> > + u64 phy_addr,
> > + char *mem_loc),
>
> [Adding Mauro...]
>
> This looks very similar to the trace event I wrote a while back,
> which was similar to the one provided by ghes_edac:
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.pci/24616
>
> Seems to me this has the same issues we previously discussed w.r.t
> EDAC conflicts...
Right, I'm inclined to leave this trace_mc_event in ras_event.h to edac
use alone because of all those layers which don't mean whit for GHES and
eMCA error sources.
And maybe define a trace_mem_event which is shared by GHES and eMCA and
not use the edac tracepoint there not load ghes_edac on such systems
which have sufficient decoding capability in firmware.
Thoughts?
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine.
--
--
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/
