Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752407AbdHPOEA (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Aug 2017 10:04:00 -0400 Received: from mail.skyhub.de ([5.9.137.197]:52656 "EHLO mail.skyhub.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752328AbdHPOD6 (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Aug 2017 10:03:58 -0400 Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 16:03:50 +0200 From: Borislav Petkov To: Steven Rostedt Cc: "Luck, Tony" , "Kani, Toshimitsu" , "rjw@rjwysocki.net" , "lenb@kernel.org" , "mchehab@kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-edac@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/7] ghes_edac: avoid multiple calls to dmi_walk() Message-ID: <20170816140350.o573iksqgkj4m5xu@pd.tnic> References: <1502734083.2042.143.camel@hpe.com> <20170814183551.sgk2i7lxpmpyodhv@pd.tnic> <1502736750.2042.145.camel@hpe.com> <20170814193432.mjldfhfal5ba5dt7@pd.tnic> <1502741290.2042.147.camel@hpe.com> <20170814203942.6t3mrq3hc324blab@pd.tnic> <1502810766.2042.149.camel@hpe.com> <20170815154815.wy3dqwb4yi3feahg@intel.com> <20170816082931.p6rpvtlxwt5nccxr@pd.tnic> <20170816095901.33b0d4c2@gandalf.local.home> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170816095901.33b0d4c2@gandalf.local.home> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 598 Lines: 23 On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 09:59:01AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > Should the above be: > > if (WARN_ON_ONCE(in_nmi())) > return; > > To prevent a deadlock? Or do we not care? Yeah, better this way. > What's the likelihood of two calls to ghes_edac_register being done > simultaneously? Because two calls at the same time will get past this. Well, that thing gets called per GHES platform device and last time I checked they do get probed back-to-back but I'll check that again. Thanks. -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.