Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753215Ab3GHU0T (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Jul 2013 16:26:19 -0400 Received: from mga01.intel.com ([192.55.52.88]:5378 "EHLO mga01.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752680Ab3GHU0O (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Jul 2013 16:26:14 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,1022,1363158000"; d="scan'208";a="367046970" From: "Luck, Tony" To: "Naveen N. Rao" , Borislav Petkov CC: "ananth@in.ibm.com" , "masbock@linux.vnet.ibm.com" , "lcm@linux.vnet.ibm.com" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org" , "Huang, Ying" Subject: RE: [PATCH 4] mce: acpi/apei: Add a sysctl to control page offlining on firmware report Thread-Topic: [PATCH 4] mce: acpi/apei: Add a sysctl to control page offlining on firmware report Thread-Index: AQHOdyOOINHwbMl7RU6Wh8zeSIvWm5lTf1QAgAAQsQCAB7OcAA== Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2013 20:26:12 +0000 Message-ID: <3908561D78D1C84285E8C5FCA982C28F31C76B19@ORSMSX106.amr.corp.intel.com> References: <20130701153728.6197.14022.stgit@localhost.localdomain> <20130702125137.7388.97225.stgit@localhost.localdomain> <20130703144641.GC13951@pd.tnic> <51D44752.3000303@linux.vnet.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <51D44752.3000303@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.22.254.139] 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 r68KQNQU006836 Content-Length: 913 Lines: 19 > Nope, this is a just-in-case thing. I think you or Tony asked to have > this in a previous discussion so that we're covered if firmware starts > acting up. Other than that, I'm ok if this is left out. I'm struggling to think of a case where this would help. It implies that we are on a running system, and we somehow notice that the BIOS is telling us to take some pages offline - and that we know better than the BIOS that we'd like to just ignore any more such messages from the BIOS. But we still leave the BIOS in charge of logging the errors and keeping track of the thresholds. I'm happy with just the acpi=nocmcff to avoid a BIOS that does weird stuff. Or do you think we might still have to deal with a string of APEI messages? -Tony ????{.n?+???????+%?????ݶ??w??{.n?+????{??G?????{ay?ʇڙ?,j??f???h?????????z_??(?階?ݢj"???m??????G????????????&???~???iO???z??v?^?m???? ????????I?