Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 22 May 2014 23:31:08 +0200 | From | Borislav Petkov <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] x86, MCE: Kill CPU_POST_DEAD |
| |
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 02:43:31AM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote: > >> After you move the cmci_rediscover() call, it is now in a place where we are > >> no longer ignoring frozen (i.e. the old placement did the rediscover even if the > >> CPU_TASKS_FROZEN bit was set - with the new placement we will skip rediscovery. > >> > > That's not quite true. The existing code already ignores FROZEN for all the cases, > by ignoring it at the top of the switch-case itself:
No, Tony's right and you got confused:
Before my change, the code did:
if (action == CPU_POST_DEAD) { /* intentionally ignoring frozen here */ cmci_rediscover(); }
which is only CPU_POST_DEAD *without* the CPU_TASKS_FROZEN bit.
If I move it in the switch-case, cmci_rediscover() *ignores the FROZEN bit and gets executed for both:
CPU_DEAD: CPU_DEAD_FROZEN:
because with the FROZEN bit masked out, they're the same.
But we don't want to execute it for the FROZEN bit - look for the other two tests for CPU_TASKS_FROZEN in mce.c for an example.
So, before we go and change the FROZEN aspect and break things in strange ways, let's keep the _FROZEN ignore. I certainly don't want to go down that road and chase why we needed FROZEN or not.
Ok?
-- Regards/Gruss, Boris.
Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine. --
| |