Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1755460AbdDLW0g (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Wed, 12 Apr 2017 18:26:36 -0400
Received: from mga01.intel.com ([192.55.52.88]:39650 "EHLO mga01.intel.com"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1754675AbdDLW0c (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Wed, 12 Apr 2017 18:26:32 -0400
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.37,191,1488873600"; 
   d="scan'208";a="88414055"
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2017 15:26:19 -0700
From: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@intel.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
        "Verma, Vishal L" <vishal.l.verma@intel.com>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org" <linux-nvdimm@ml01.01.org>,
        "ross.zwisler@linux.intel.com" <ross.zwisler@linux.intel.com>,
        "x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] x86, mce: change the mce notifier to 'blocking' from
 'atomic'
Message-ID: <20170412222619.GA17839@intel.com>
References: <20170412091442.dwonfr4dwyta7nvx@pd.tnic>
 <20170412195903.GA29506@omniknight.lm.intel.com>
 <20170412202238.5d327vmwjqvbzzop@pd.tnic>
 <1492028744.2738.14.camel@intel.com>
 <20170412205229.GA13659@intel.com>
 <CAPcyv4j1=Cs84nn6n-9vygSJ2Ei9Z3Gw7hCzyBzo+GyLKWaTUg@mail.gmail.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.20.1704122259490.2548@nanos>
 <20170412211931.GA15771@intel.com>
 <20170412214749.jyt7cmyhovivtb2m@pd.tnic>
 <20170412221639.5klmqk4mjbvy6btx@pd.tnic>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170412221639.5klmqk4mjbvy6btx@pd.tnic>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 629
Lines: 20

On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 12:16:39AM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> ... and it is midnight here so I could be talking crap but we probably
> should really split the reporting "chain" into two:

This shouldn't be too painful. Users ask to be put on the chain via
the wrapper:

void mce_register_decode_chain(struct notifier_block *nb)
{
        atomic_inc(&num_notifiers);

        WARN_ON(nb->priority > MCE_PRIO_LOWEST && nb->priority < MCE_PRIO_EDAC);

        atomic_notifier_chain_register(&x86_mce_decoder_chain, nb);
}

We can futz with that and have them specify which chain (or both)
that they want to be added to.

-Tony