On Wed, 2017-08-02 at 05:18 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 12:19:29AM +, Kani, Toshimitsu wrote:
> > 1. Device-probing-logic should belong to a driver, and should
> > remain private to a driver. When we add the white-list, it should
> > be added to ghes_edac.
>
> Nons
On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 12:19:29AM +, Kani, Toshimitsu wrote:
> 1. Device-probing-logic should belong to a driver, and should remain
> private to a driver. When we add the white-list, it should be added to
> ghes_edac.
Nonsense. There are a lot of examples where driver probing depends on
outs
On Tue, 2017-08-01 at 11:46 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 08:19:32PM +, Kani, Toshimitsu wrote:
> > I'd prefer to add the whitelist check to ghes_edac first. This
> > makes the existing code to work. We can then work on refactoring
> > changes like this on top of it
On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 08:19:32PM +, Kani, Toshimitsu wrote:
> I'd prefer to add the whitelist check to ghes_edac first. This makes
> the existing code to work. We can then work on refactoring changes
> like this on top of it without breaking the functionality.
Yes, but we want only the whi
On Sat, 2017-07-29 at 08:47 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 06:50:56PM +, Kani, Toshimitsu wrote:
> > This simply sets NULL to pvt, and does not initialize ghes_pvt.
>
> Yeah, I guess we need this ontop:
Yes, this fix looks good.
> > As Mauro pointed out, some type o
On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 06:50:56PM +, Kani, Toshimitsu wrote:
> This simply sets NULL to pvt, and does not initialize ghes_pvt.
Yeah, I guess we need this ontop:
---
diff --git a/drivers/edac/ghes_edac.c b/drivers/edac/ghes_edac.c
index ecd34b8bd27e..e158bf4ee337 100644
--- a/drivers/edac/ghe
On Wed, 2017-07-26 at 10:48 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> From: Borislav Petkov
>
> Register with the GHES notifier chain so that there's no need to call
> into the module with ghes_edac_report_mem_error().
>
> Signed-off-by: Borislav Petkov
:
> +static int report_mem_error(struct notifier_b
On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 07:24:59PM +, Kani, Toshimitsu wrote:
> Using sb_edac does not change the fact that it is FF. I do not think
> you'd see normal CEs on your box.
I guess we should add some blurb to EDAC to say that on FF systems,
error counts are unreliable or even non-existent.
--
R
On Wed, 2017-07-26 at 07:24 -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> Em Wed, 26 Jul 2017 10:48:27 +0200
> Borislav Petkov escreveu:
>
> > From: Borislav Petkov
> >
> > Register with the GHES notifier chain so that there's no need to
> > call into the module with ghes_edac_report_mem_error().
>
>
On Wed, 2017-07-26 at 15:17 -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> Em Wed, 26 Jul 2017 17:27:12 +
:
> I didn't try to inject an error, as I'm not sure if EINJ feature is
> enabled on this BIOS. Probably not.
I believe it has EINJ support.
> At least on this machine, I very much prefer to use
Em Wed, 26 Jul 2017 17:27:12 +
"Luck, Tony" escreveu:
> > > > Hmm... I'm not seeing any implementation that would allow setting
> > > > between firmware first, hardware first or "auto", as we've discussed.
> > >
> > > This is all coming up. As the 0/3 message said, these 3 patches are the
>
> > > Hmm... I'm not seeing any implementation that would allow setting
> > > between firmware first, hardware first or "auto", as we've discussed.
> >
> > This is all coming up. As the 0/3 message said, these 3 patches are the
> > bare minimum of reorganizing stuff only and should serve as a base
Em Wed, 26 Jul 2017 12:37:08 +0200
Borislav Petkov escreveu:
> On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 07:24:04AM -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> > Hmm... I'm not seeing any implementation that would allow setting
> > between firmware first, hardware first or "auto", as we've discussed.
>
> This is all co
On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 07:24:04AM -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> Hmm... I'm not seeing any implementation that would allow setting
> between firmware first, hardware first or "auto", as we've discussed.
This is all coming up. As the 0/3 message said, these 3 patches are the
bare minimum of
Em Wed, 26 Jul 2017 10:48:27 +0200
Borislav Petkov escreveu:
> From: Borislav Petkov
>
> Register with the GHES notifier chain so that there's no need to call
> into the module with ghes_edac_report_mem_error().
Hmm... I'm not seeing any implementation that would allow setting
between firmware
From: Borislav Petkov
Register with the GHES notifier chain so that there's no need to call
into the module with ghes_edac_report_mem_error().
Signed-off-by: Borislav Petkov
---
drivers/acpi/apei/ghes.c | 18 +++
drivers/edac/Kconfig | 4 +-
drivers/edac/ghes_edac.c | 129 ++
16 matches
Mail list logo
