Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S967409Ab3E3E5O (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 May 2013 00:57:14 -0400 Received: from g4t0014.houston.hp.com ([15.201.24.17]:48984 "EHLO g4t0014.houston.hp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750845Ab3E3E5J (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 May 2013 00:57:09 -0400 From: "Ortiz, Lance E" To: "Luck, Tony" , "Rafael J. Wysocki" CC: "bhelgaas@google.com" , "lance_ortiz@hotmail.com" , "jiang.liu@huawei.com" , "bp@alien8.de" , "rostedt@goodmis.org" , "mchehab@redhat.com" , "linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-pci@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: RE: [PATCH v3] aerdrv: Move cper_print_aer() call out of interrupt context Thread-Topic: [PATCH v3] aerdrv: Move cper_print_aer() call out of interrupt context Thread-Index: AQHOXL6xaJHLIdYYMUCf//A2tjAxCpkcyS2AgABcuTA= Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 04:55:20 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20130529190326.24171.86905.stgit@grignak.americas.hpqcorp.net> <30463843.EmBn1xaq3I@vostro.rjw.lan> <3908561D78D1C84285E8C5FCA982C28F2DA70112@ORSMSX106.amr.corp.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <3908561D78D1C84285E8C5FCA982C28F2DA70112@ORSMSX106.amr.corp.intel.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [16.210.48.17] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from base64 to 8bit by mail.home.local id r4U4vKg8014799 Content-Length: 1602 Lines: 26 > > + /* > > + * TODO: This function needs to be re-written so that it's output > > + * matches the output of aer_print_error(). Right now, the > output > > + * is formatted very differently. > > + */ > > So we have this big "TODO" comment sitting there very prominently ... > which Linus > is bound to ask about if I ask him to pull this into 3.10-rcX ... > what's the impact of > this? What should I say when he asks why should he pull this fix into > 3.10 when > there is still some work to do? Is matching the output no big deal and > can wait for > some future, while moving the pci bits to the work function needs to go > in now? Tony, You have a good point. Ideally the console output should be the same in both the aer and the cper case. The output in cper_print_error() does give us a reasonable amount of information, just not as detailed as I the aer case. Also now what we have the trace event for aer, the console output might be less important. This TODO is a note for future clean-up and is not directly related to the bug being fixed with this patch. Which lends to the argument of why put the TODO in this patch? Opportunistic. I don’t think we want to create a separate patch just for a TODO note. So, why pull this patch in even though there is work to do? The patch fixes a warning that might cause customers un-due concern and removes a call in interrupt context that should not be there. Lance ????{.n?+???????+%?????ݶ??w??{.n?+????{??G?????{ay?ʇڙ?,j??f???h?????????z_??(?階?ݢj"???m??????G????????????&???~???iO???z??v?^?m???? ????????I?