Re: [RFC PATCH 6/8] EDAC, mce_amd: Convert to seq_buf

On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 08:59:59AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > Interesting, this is the first I heard of the genpool. I probably could > have used this in other code. Good to know (learn something new every > day :-) That's a safe assumption for each one of us. :) > I'll have to take a look

Re: [RFC PATCH 6/8] EDAC, mce_amd: Convert to seq_buf

On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 08:59:59AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > Interesting, this is the first I heard of the genpool. I probably could > have used this in other code. Good to know (learn something new every > day :-) That's a safe assumption for each one of us. :) > I'll have to take a look

Re: [RFC PATCH 6/8] EDAC, mce_amd: Convert to seq_buf

On Fri, 28 Jul 2017 12:51:40 +0200 Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 09:09:33AM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 09:47:08PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > > What happens if two CPUs have mce's at the same time? Wouldn't one > > >

Re: [RFC PATCH 6/8] EDAC, mce_amd: Convert to seq_buf

On Fri, 28 Jul 2017 12:51:40 +0200 Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 09:09:33AM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 09:47:08PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > > What happens if two CPUs have mce's at the same time? Wouldn't one > > > corrupt the other

Re: [RFC PATCH 6/8] EDAC, mce_amd: Convert to seq_buf

On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 09:09:33AM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 09:47:08PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > What happens if two CPUs have mce's at the same time? Wouldn't one > > corrupt the other buffer. 128 isn't too big to put on the stack is it? > > Yeah, putting it

Re: [RFC PATCH 6/8] EDAC, mce_amd: Convert to seq_buf

On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 09:09:33AM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 09:47:08PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > What happens if two CPUs have mce's at the same time? Wouldn't one > > corrupt the other buffer. 128 isn't too big to put on the stack is it? > > Yeah, putting it

Re: [RFC PATCH 6/8] EDAC, mce_amd: Convert to seq_buf

On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 09:47:08PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > What happens if two CPUs have mce's at the same time? Wouldn't one > corrupt the other buffer. 128 isn't too big to put on the stack is it? Yeah, putting it on the stack is probably safer, just in case. What is even better,

Re: [RFC PATCH 6/8] EDAC, mce_amd: Convert to seq_buf

On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 09:47:08PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > What happens if two CPUs have mce's at the same time? Wouldn't one > corrupt the other buffer. 128 isn't too big to put on the stack is it? Yeah, putting it on the stack is probably safer, just in case. What is even better,

Re: [RFC PATCH 6/8] EDAC, mce_amd: Convert to seq_buf

On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 17:45:59 +0200 Borislav Petkov wrote: > From: Borislav Petkov > > Convert the part which decodes the error description to the sequence > buffer facility and thus save ourselves the many printk() invocations > building the decoded string. > >

Re: [RFC PATCH 6/8] EDAC, mce_amd: Convert to seq_buf

On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 17:45:59 +0200 Borislav Petkov wrote: > From: Borislav Petkov > > Convert the part which decodes the error description to the sequence > buffer facility and thus save ourselves the many printk() invocations > building the decoded string. > > No functionality change. > >

[RFC PATCH 6/8] EDAC, mce_amd: Convert to seq_buf

From: Borislav Petkov Convert the part which decodes the error description to the sequence buffer facility and thus save ourselves the many printk() invocations building the decoded string. No functionality change. Signed-off-by: Borislav Petkov ---

[RFC PATCH 6/8] EDAC, mce_amd: Convert to seq_buf

From: Borislav Petkov Convert the part which decodes the error description to the sequence buffer facility and thus save ourselves the many printk() invocations building the decoded string. No functionality change. Signed-off-by: Borislav Petkov --- drivers/edac/mce_amd.c | 203