lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Dec]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/6] HWPOISON: clean up memory_failure() vs. __memory_failure()

* Borislav Petkov <bp@amd64.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 08:47:49AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > -/* dummy to break dependency. actual code is in mm/memory-failure.c */
> > > -void __attribute__((weak)) memory_failure(unsigned long pfn, int vector)
> > > +#ifndef CONFIG_MEMORY_FAILURE
> > > +int memory_failure(unsigned long pfn, int vector, int flags)
> > > {
> > > printk(KERN_ERR "Action optional memory failure at %lx ignored\n", pfn);
> >
> > Btw., while at it, could we phrase this message in a more
> > obvious way to users, such as 'Non-fatal memory failure at
> > %lx ignored'?
>
> Yeah, that's might not be as correct as we want it to be. AO
> means it is an uncorrectable error, i.e. it will become fatal
> if we'd consumed it, but it isn't that now because we just saw
> it passing by in the cacheline...
>
> Maybe "Fatal, unconsumed error ignored..."

There's also the distinction that tells us which context is
affected by an error: the currently executing task/mm, or some
other one.

So you can keep the terminology i guess lacking a better
alternative, i just wanted to point out that it's likely
confusing to users.

Thanks,

Ingo


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-12-14 17:59    [W:0.071 / U:0.972 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site