Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 19:26:03 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To: "Baicar, Tyler" <tbaicar@codeaurora.org>
Cc: christoffer.dall@linaro.org, marc.zyngier@arm.com, pbonzini@redhat.com,
        rkrcmar@redhat.com, linux@armlinux.org.uk, catalin.marinas@arm.com,
        will.deacon@arm.com, rjw@rjwysocki.net, lenb@kernel.org,
        matt@codeblueprint.co.uk, robert.moore@intel.com, lv.zheng@intel.com,
        nkaje@codeaurora.org, zjzhang@codeaurora.org, mark.rutland@arm.com,
        james.morse@arm.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
        eun.taik.lee@samsung.com, sandeepa.s.prabhu@gmail.com,
        labbott@redhat.com, shijie.huang@arm.com, rruigrok@codeaurora.org,
        paul.gortmaker@windriver.com, tn@semihalf.com, fu.wei@linaro.org,
        rostedt@goodmis.org, bristot@redhat.com,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu,
        kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-efi@vger.kernel.org,
        devel@acpica.org, Suzuki.Poulose@arm.com, punit.agrawal@arm.com,
        astone@redhat.com, harba@codeaurora.org, hanjun.guo@linaro.org,
        john.garry@huawei.com, shiju.jose@huawei.com, joe@perches.com,
        rafael@kernel.org, tony.luck@intel.com, gengdongjiu@huawei.com,
        xiexiuqi@huawei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V15 03/11] cper: add timestamp print to CPER status
 printing
Message-ID: <20170421172603.4574wonnm5tgvbcn@pd.tnic>
References: <1492556723-9189-1-git-send-email-tbaicar@codeaurora.org>
 <1492556723-9189-4-git-send-email-tbaicar@codeaurora.org>
 <20170421122150.76cce2cfrt767glv@pd.tnic>
 <35cc4ae0-e8fa-fd3a-5d7f-243ed2e82ea0@codeaurora.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <35cc4ae0-e8fa-fd3a-5d7f-243ed2e82ea0@codeaurora.org>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 967
Lines: 34

On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 10:04:35AM -0600, Baicar, Tyler wrote:
> This is basically what I already had in v14...you asked to move it into a
> different if-statement? https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/4/12/397

Well, clearly I've been smoking some nasty potent sh*t. :-\

/me goes and looks at the spec:

"Bit 0 – Timestamp is precise if this bit is set and correlates to the
time of the error event."

So why are we even printing the timestamp when !precise?

IOW, I think we should do:

	if (!(timestamp[3] & 0x1))
		printk("%stimestamp imprecise\n", pfx);
	else {
		sec = ..
		min = ...

		...
	}

and print the actual values only when the timestamp is precise.
Otherwise it has *some* values which could just as well be completely
random. And it's not like we're reporting the error tomorrow - it is
mostly a couple of seconds from logging to the fw pushing it out...

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.