Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH V3 02/10] ras: acpi/apei: cper: generic error data entry v3 per ACPI 6.1 | From | "Baicar, Tyler" <> | Date | Wed, 12 Oct 2016 16:10:52 -0600 |
| |
Hello Suzuki,
Thank you for the feedback! Responses below.
On 10/11/2016 11:28 AM, Suzuki K Poulose wrote: > On 07/10/16 22:31, Tyler Baicar wrote: >> Currently when a RAS error is reported it is not timestamped. >> The ACPI 6.1 spec adds the timestamp field to the generic error >> data entry v3 structure. The timestamp of when the firmware >> generated the error is now being reported. >> >> Signed-off-by: Jonathan (Zhixiong) Zhang <zjzhang@codeaurora.org> >> Signed-off-by: Richard Ruigrok <rruigrok@codeaurora.org> >> Signed-off-by: Tyler Baicar <tbaicar@codeaurora.org> >> Signed-off-by: Naveen Kaje <nkaje@codeaurora.org> > > Please could you keep the people who reviewed/commented on your series > in the past, > whenever you post a new version ? Do you mean to just send the new version to their e-mail directly in addition to the lists? If so, I will do that next time.
I know you provided good feedback on the previous patchset, but I did not have anyone specifically respond to add "reviewed-by:...". I don't think I should add reviewed-by for someone unless they specifically add it in a response :) > >> --- >> drivers/acpi/apei/ghes.c | 25 ++++++++++-- >> drivers/firmware/efi/cper.c | 97 >> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------ >> 2 files changed, 105 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/apei/ghes.c b/drivers/acpi/apei/ghes.c >> index 3021f0e..c8488f1 100644 >> --- a/drivers/acpi/apei/ghes.c >> +++ b/drivers/acpi/apei/ghes.c >> @@ -80,6 +80,10 @@ >> ((struct acpi_hest_generic_status *) \ >> ((struct ghes_estatus_node *)(estatus_node) + 1)) >> >> +#define acpi_hest_generic_data_version(gdata) \ >> + (gdata->revision >> 8) > > ... > >> +inline void *acpi_hest_generic_data_payload(struct >> acpi_hest_generic_data *gdata) >> +{ >> + return acpi_hest_generic_data_version(gdata) >= 3 ? >> + (void *)(((struct acpi_hest_generic_data_v300 *)(gdata)) + 1) : >> + gdata + 1; >> +} >> + > > > >> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/efi/cper.c b/drivers/firmware/efi/cper.c >> index d425374..9fa1317 100644 >> --- a/drivers/firmware/efi/cper.c >> +++ b/drivers/firmware/efi/cper.c > >> +#define acpi_hest_generic_data_version(gdata) \ >> + (gdata->revision >> 8) >> + > > ... > >> +static inline void *acpi_hest_generic_data_payload(struct >> acpi_hest_generic_data *gdata) >> +{ >> + return acpi_hest_generic_data_version(gdata) >= 3 ? >> + (void *)(((struct acpi_hest_generic_data_v300 *)(gdata)) + 1) : >> + gdata + 1; >> +} > > Could these go to a header file, so that we don't need duplicate > definitions of these helpers in > different files ? > I think that should work to avoid duplication. I will move them to a header file in the next patchset. >> + >> +static void cper_estatus_print_section_v300(const char *pfx, >> + const struct acpi_hest_generic_data_v300 *gdata) >> +{ >> + __u8 hour, min, sec, day, mon, year, century, *timestamp; >> + >> + if (gdata->validation_bits & ACPI_HEST_GEN_VALID_TIMESTAMP) { >> + timestamp = (__u8 *)&(gdata->time_stamp); >> + memcpy(&sec, timestamp, 1); >> + memcpy(&min, timestamp + 1, 1); >> + memcpy(&hour, timestamp + 2, 1); >> + memcpy(&day, timestamp + 4, 1); >> + memcpy(&mon, timestamp + 5, 1); >> + memcpy(&year, timestamp + 6, 1); >> + memcpy(¢ury, timestamp + 7, 1); >> + printk("%stime: ", pfx); >> + printk("%7s", 0x01 & *(timestamp + 3) ? "precise" : ""); > > What format is the (timestamp + 3) stored in ? Does it need conversion ? The third byte of the timestamp is currently only used to determine if the time is precise or not. Bit 0 is used to specify that and the other bits in this byte are marked as reserved. This is shown in table 247 of the UEFI spec 2.6:
Byte 3: Bit 0 – Timestamp is precise if this bit is set and correlates to the time of the error event. Bit 7:1 – Reserved > >> + printk(" %02d:%02d:%02d %02d%02d-%02d-%02d\n", >> + bcd2bin(hour), bcd2bin(min), bcd2bin(sec), >> + bcd2bin(century), bcd2bin(year), bcd2bin(mon), >> + bcd2bin(day)); >> + } > > minor nit: Would it be easier to order/parse the error messages if the > date > is printed first followed by time ? > > i.e, > 17:20:14 2016-09-15 Mon > vs > 2016-09-15 Mon 17:20:14 > > e.g, people looking at a huge log, looking for logs from a specific > date might > find the latter more useful to skip the messages. > The latter does seem like it would be better for parsing large logs. I can rearrange the order in the next patchset. >> +} >> + >> static void cper_estatus_print_section( >> - const char *pfx, const struct acpi_hest_generic_data *gdata, int >> sec_no) >> + const char *pfx, struct acpi_hest_generic_data *gdata, int sec_no) >> { >> uuid_le *sec_type = (uuid_le *)gdata->section_type; >> __u16 severity; >> char newpfx[64]; >> >> + if ((gdata->revision >> 8) >= 0x03) > > Could we use the helper defined above ? Yes, I'll change this to use acpi_hest_generic_data_version(gdata) instead. > >> @@ -451,12 +497,22 @@ void cper_estatus_print(const char *pfx, >> printk("%s""event severity: %s\n", pfx, >> cper_severity_str(severity)); >> data_len = estatus->data_length; >> gdata = (struct acpi_hest_generic_data *)(estatus + 1); >> + if ((gdata->revision >> 8) >= 0x03) > > Same as above, use the macro ? Yes, I'll change this to use acpi_hest_generic_data_version(gdata) instead. > >> + gdata_v3 = (struct acpi_hest_generic_data_v300 *)gdata; >> + >> snprintf(newpfx, sizeof(newpfx), "%s%s", pfx, INDENT_SP); >> + >> while (data_len >= sizeof(*gdata)) { >> gedata_len = gdata->error_data_length; >> cper_estatus_print_section(newpfx, gdata, sec_no); >> - data_len -= gedata_len + sizeof(*gdata); >> - gdata = (void *)(gdata + 1) + gedata_len; >> + if(gdata_v3) { >> + data_len -= gedata_len + sizeof(*gdata_v3); >> + gdata_v3 = (void *)(gdata_v3 + 1) + gedata_len; >> + gdata = (struct acpi_hest_generic_data *)gdata_v3; >> + } else { >> + data_len -= gedata_len + sizeof(*gdata); >> + gdata = (void *)(gdata + 1) + gedata_len; >> + } >> sec_no++; >> } > > ... > >> >> @@ -486,15 +543,29 @@ int cper_estatus_check(const struct >> acpi_hest_generic_status *estatus) >> return rc; >> data_len = estatus->data_length; >> gdata = (struct acpi_hest_generic_data *)(estatus + 1); >> - while (data_len >= sizeof(*gdata)) { >> - gedata_len = gdata->error_data_length; >> - if (gedata_len > data_len - sizeof(*gdata)) >> + >> + if ((gdata->revision >> 8) >= 0x03) { >> + gdata_v3 = (struct acpi_hest_generic_data_v300 *)gdata; >> + while (data_len >= sizeof(*gdata_v3)) { >> + gedata_len = gdata_v3->error_data_length; >> + if (gedata_len > data_len - sizeof(*gdata_v3)) >> + return -EINVAL; >> + data_len -= gedata_len + sizeof(*gdata_v3); >> + gdata_v3 = (void *)(gdata_v3 + 1) + gedata_len; >> + } >> + if (data_len) >> + return -EINVAL; >> + } else { >> + while (data_len >= sizeof(*gdata)) { >> + gedata_len = gdata->error_data_length; >> + if (gedata_len > data_len - sizeof(*gdata)) >> + return -EINVAL; >> + data_len -= gedata_len + sizeof(*gdata); >> + gdata = (void *)(gdata + 1) + gedata_len; >> + } >> + if (data_len) > > As mentioned in the previous version, would it make sense to add some > more > helpers to deal with record versions ? We seem to be doing the version > switch and > code duplication at different places. > > Does the following help ? Thoughts ? > > #define acpi_hest_generic_data_error_length(gdata) (((struct > acpi_hest_generic_data *)(gdata))->error_data_length) > #define acpi_hest_generic_data_size(gdata) \ > ((acpi_hest_generic_data_version(gdata) >= 3) ? \ > sizeof(struct acpi_hest_generic_data_v300) : \ > sizeof(struct acpi_hest_generic_data)) > #define acpi_hest_generic_data_record_size(gdata) > (acpi_hest_generic_data_size(gdata) + \ > acpi_hest_generic_data_error_length(gdata)) > #define acpi_hest_generic_data_next(gdata) \ > ((void *)(gdata) + acpi_hest_generic_data_record_size(gdata)) > > > Suzuki These helpers will definitely help consolidate this code. I will use these in the next version to remove the code duplication here.
Thanks, Tyler
-- Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies, Inc. as an affiliate of Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.
| |