Messages in this thread | | | From | Shiju Jose <> | Subject | RE: [PATCH v6 1/2] ACPI / APEI: Add support to notify the vendor specific HW errors | Date | Wed, 8 Apr 2020 09:20:51 +0000 |
| |
Hi Boris,
>-----Original Message----- >From: Borislav Petkov [mailto:bp@alien8.de] >Sent: 31 March 2020 10:09 >To: Shiju Jose <shiju.jose@huawei.com> >Cc: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org; linux-pci@vger.kernel.org; linux- >kernel@vger.kernel.org; rjw@rjwysocki.net; helgaas@kernel.org; >lenb@kernel.org; james.morse@arm.com; tony.luck@intel.com; >gregkh@linuxfoundation.org; zhangliguang@linux.alibaba.com; >tglx@linutronix.de; Linuxarm <linuxarm@huawei.com>; Jonathan Cameron ><jonathan.cameron@huawei.com>; tanxiaofei <tanxiaofei@huawei.com>; >yangyicong <yangyicong@huawei.com> >Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/2] ACPI / APEI: Add support to notify the vendor >specific HW errors > >On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 03:44:29PM +0000, Shiju Jose wrote: >> 1. rasdaemon need not to print the vendor error data reported by the >firmware if the >> kernel driver already print those information. In this case rasdaemon will >only need to store >> the decoded vendor error data to the SQL database. > >Well, there's a problem with this: > >rasdaemon printing != kernel driver printing > >Because printing in dmesg would need people to go grep dmesg. > >Printing through rasdaemon or any userspace agent, OTOH, is a lot more >flexible wrt analyzing and collecting those error records. Especially if you are a >data center admin and you want to collect all your error >records: grepping dmesg simply doesn't scale versus all the rasdaemon >agents reporting to a centrallized location. Ok. I posted V7 of this series. "[v7 PATCH 0/6] ACPI / APEI: Add support to notify non-fatal HW errors"
> >> 2. If the vendor kernel driver want to report extra error information >through >> the vendor specific data (though presently we do not have any such use >case) for the rasdamon to log. >> I think the error handled status useful to indicate that the kernel driver >has filled the extra information and >> rasdaemon to decode and log them after extra data specific validity >check. > >The kernel driver can report that extra information without the kernel saying >that the error was handled. > >So I still see no sense for the kernel to tell userspace explicitly that it handled >the error. There might be a valid reason, though, of which I cannot think of >right now. Ok.
> >Thx. > >-- >Regards/Gruss, > Boris. > >https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
Thanks, Shiju
| |