Hi Tony,
On 2017/11/15 10:13, Luck, Tony wrote:
>> OK, I'll add check for OVER=0 in v2.
>
> Thinking a bit more on this ... do you just need to remove the check
> for S=1 from the existing "AO" entries? Or do we need the CMCI
> match entry early in the table?
Yes, we could just remove the check for S=1, and place "AO" entries before
"UCNA" entries.
Is that right?
>
> -Tony
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-edac" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
>
--
Thanks,
Xie XiuQi
From 1584100640788588965@xxx Wed Nov 15 03:21:35 +0000 2017
X-GM-THRID: 1584019955232759909
X-Gmail-Labels: Inbox,Category Forums,HistoricalUnread
> Yes, we could just remove the check for S=1, and place "AO" entries before
> "UCNA" entries.
>
> Is that right?
Probably. But you should give more thought than I just did to the order to
make sure that we don't give the wrong classification to something because
it now matches something early in the table when it ought to wait and match
a later entry.
This code is subtle :-(
-Tony
From 1584097410374747315@xxx Wed Nov 15 02:30:14 +0000 2017
X-GM-THRID: 1584019955232759909
X-Gmail-Labels: Inbox,Category Forums,HistoricalUnread