@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86/mce/AMD: Carve out SMCA bank configuration
>
> On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 02:37:34PM +, Ghannam, Yazen wrote:
> > No, not at the moment. This patch is just to help with readability.
>
> Then no need to have two separate functions
> -Original Message-
> From: Borislav Petkov [mailto:b...@alien8.de]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2017 11:01 AM
> To: Ghannam, Yazen
> Cc: linux-e...@vger.kernel.org; Tony Luck ;
> x...@kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86/mce/AMD
On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 02:37:34PM +, Ghannam, Yazen wrote:
> No, not at the moment. This patch is just to help with readability.
Then no need to have two separate functions just because stuff is
logically independent. Add a comment over the SMCA configuration part in
case we want to carve it
On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 02:37:34PM +, Ghannam, Yazen wrote:
> No, not at the moment. This patch is just to help with readability.
Then no need to have two separate functions just because stuff is
logically independent. Add a comment over the SMCA configuration part in
case we want to carve it
rnel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86/mce/AMD: Carve out SMCA bank configuration
>
> On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 01:34:42PM +, Ghannam, Yazen wrote:
> > I'd like to keep the functions separate since they're logically
> > independent. I can define something like smca_con
> -Original Message-
> From: Borislav Petkov [mailto:b...@alien8.de]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2017 9:46 AM
> To: Ghannam, Yazen
> Cc: linux-e...@vger.kernel.org; Tony Luck ;
> x...@kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86/mce/AMD
On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 01:34:42PM +, Ghannam, Yazen wrote:
> I'd like to keep the functions separate since they're logically independent.
> I can
> define something like smca_configure() as a wrapper function that can contain
> current and future SMCA related functions. Is this okay?
Are
On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 01:34:42PM +, Ghannam, Yazen wrote:
> I'd like to keep the functions separate since they're logically independent.
> I can
> define something like smca_configure() as a wrapper function that can contain
> current and future SMCA related functions. Is this okay?
Are
el.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86/mce/AMD: Carve out SMCA bank configuration
>
> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 02:29:31PM -0500, Yazen Ghannam wrote:
> > From: Yazen Ghannam <yazen.ghan...@amd.com>
> >
> > Scalable MCA systems have a new MCA_CONFIG register that we us
> -Original Message-
> From: Borislav Petkov [mailto:b...@suse.de]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 3:23 PM
> To: Ghannam, Yazen
> Cc: linux-e...@vger.kernel.org; Tony Luck ;
> x...@kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86/mce/AMD
On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 02:29:31PM -0500, Yazen Ghannam wrote:
> From: Yazen Ghannam
>
> Scalable MCA systems have a new MCA_CONFIG register that we use to
> configure each bank. We currently use this when we set up thresholding.
> However, this is logically separate.
>
>
On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 02:29:31PM -0500, Yazen Ghannam wrote:
> From: Yazen Ghannam
>
> Scalable MCA systems have a new MCA_CONFIG register that we use to
> configure each bank. We currently use this when we set up thresholding.
> However, this is logically separate.
>
> Move setup of
12 matches
Mail list logo