Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 25 Oct 2010 22:23:44 +0200 | From | Borislav Petkov <> | Subject | Re: [NAK] Re: [PATCH -v2 9/9] ACPI, APEI, Generic Hardware Error Source POLL/IRQ/NMI notification type support |
| |
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 10:14:52AM -0700, Tony Luck wrote: > On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 2:25 AM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote: > > > drivers/acpi/apei/ overlaps and duplicates drivers/edac/. We dont want two > > facilities, two ABIs, two sets of behavior. erst-dbg even defines a /dev node with > > two ioctls, and a debugfs file to read/write records ... > > As mentioned above these 4-letter names from from the ACPI specification. ERST > is perhaps the dumbest name of them all - "Error Record Serialization Table" is > ACPI-speak for platform level non-volatile memory. This code simply provides > a mechanism for Linux to stash some information in nvram before the system is > reset, and to retrieve it after the reboot. > > The naming could be better - but I don't see any overlap with EDAC here.
You may be right but what we actually want is a consistent RAS infrastructure. Didn't you point out at the last edac meeting in Boston that concerning RAS Linux were in the stone ages? (at least this is what I remember reading).
What we should do is put all that post-system-reset error info, ECC errors mapping to DRAM devices, L3 cache index manipulation based on excessive errors - you name it - together and stick it in ras/ or drivers/ras or whatever. And all with a nice and easy to use userspace tool on top.
Now it looks like a wart on arch/x86/ which truly doesn't belong there. And I don't buy all that crap that it can't be done right.
Thanks.
-- Regards/Gruss, Boris.
| |