Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Fri, 27 Jul 2018 15:08:34 -0700
From:   "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@intel.com>
To:     Yazen Ghannam <Yazen.Ghannam@amd.com>
Cc:     linux-edac@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        bp@suse.de, x86@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/mce: Handle varying MCA bank counts
Message-ID: <20180727220833.GA30752@agluck-desk>
References: <20180727214009.78289-1-Yazen.Ghannam@amd.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180727214009.78289-1-Yazen.Ghannam@amd.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 04:40:09PM -0500, Yazen Ghannam wrote:
> -	/* Don't support asymmetric configurations today */
> -	WARN_ON(mca_cfg.banks != 0 && b != mca_cfg.banks);
> -	mca_cfg.banks = b;
> +	mca_cfg.banks = max(mca_cfg.banks, b);

Should we change mca_cfg.banks to be a per-cpu variable?

	DEFINE_PER_CPU(int, mce_num_banks);

That would make it easier to make sure the places
that scan all banks only look at the ones that exist.

-Tony