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

    * Huang Ying <ying.huang@intel.com> wrote:

    > On Tue, 2010-10-26 at 15:22 +0800, Ingo Molnar wrote:
    > > * Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:
    > >
    > > > >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.
    > >
    > > Btw., it's not just about EDAC - the firmware can store Linux events
    > > persistently (beyond allowing the firmware to insert its own RAS events), that
    > > is obviously _hugely_ useful for kernel debugging in general. We could inject
    > > debugging events there and recover them after a crash, etc.
    >
    > Yes. It can be used by other kernel subsystems other than RAS. A kernel API is
    > provided already. The design of the kernel API makes it easy to be used by various
    > kernel subsystems. As the first step, we plan to support saving kernel log before
    > panic and reading it back after reboot.

    And that's the problem: we have good facilities already that deal with similar
    things. We have NMI-safe event logging, event enumeration, dump-on-panic code and
    all sorts of goodies there.

    But what did Andi's guidance/design lead you to do instead?

    You stuck a useful hw feature into a vendor specific area of the kernel and exported
    it to /dev/erst-dbg via a crappy ABI. You also did it in the worst possible
    imaginable way: you avoided talking to the people who maintain and know the
    RAS/EDAC/debugging/instrumentation code, and you tried to create an ABI to export it
    in the most raw form possible - limiting our future options.

    All that done so that dealing with those pesky RAS/EDAC, instrumentation and core
    kernel people can be avoided? ;-)

    Sucks IMHO.

    Thanks,

    Ingo


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2010-10-26 09:59    [W:0.025 / U:30.824 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site