[lkml]   [2010]   [Oct]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [NAK] Re: [PATCH -v2 9/9] ACPI, APEI, Generic Hardware Error Source POLL/IRQ/NMI notification type support
    Hi, Thomas,

    On Tue, 2010-10-26 at 12:53 +0800, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
    > B1;2401;0cLen,
    > On Mon, 25 Oct 2010, Len Brown wrote:
    > > > NAKed-by: Ingo Molnar <>
    > >
    > > Everybody knows that Linux has a lot to learn about RAS.
    > >
    > > I think to catch up, we need to play to Linux's strengths
    > > of continuous improvement. If we halt patches in this area
    > > then we could wait forever for the "perfect design".
    > it's not about perfect design. It's about creating new user space
    > ABIs. The patches introduce another error reporting user space ABI
    > with an ad hoc "fits the needs" design.
    > This is my major point of objection.
    > I agree that Linux needs improvement on the RAS side, but does this
    > lack of features justify a new user space ABI which is totally
    > disconnected to existing RAS facilities ?
    > No, it does not. It's not our problem that Intel wasted time on
    > creating another character device driver to report errors to user
    > space. The time spent to do so would have been sufficient to do a
    > proper integration into the existing infrastructure.
    > I would not care at all if these patches would just introduce some
    > weird in kernel interfaces as we can clean that up at will. But
    > introducing a new user space ABI is setting the disconnect of RAS
    > related facilities into stone.
    > From Kconfig:
    > EDAC is designed to report errors in the core system.
    > These are low-level errors that are reported in the CPU or
    > supporting chipset or other subsystems:
    > memory errors, cache errors, PCI errors, thermal throttling, etc..
    > If unsure, select 'Y'.
    > So please explain why your error reporting is so different from the
    > above that it justifies a separate facility. And you better come up
    > with a real good explanation other than we looked at EDAC and it did
    > not fit our needs.

    As far as I know, EDAC guys plan to use some other "perfect interface"
    in the future. So I think the current state is really waiting for the
    "perfect design".

    Best Regards,
    Huang Ying

     \ /
      Last update: 2010-10-26 10:55    [W:0.028 / U:131.996 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site