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:   Tue, 9 Apr 2019 22:34:12 +0200
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To:     "Ghannam, Yazen" <Yazen.Ghannam@amd.com>
Cc:     "linux-edac@vger.kernel.org" <linux-edac@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "tony.luck@intel.com" <tony.luck@intel.com>,
        "x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND 2/5] x86/MCE: Handle MCA controls in a per_cpu way
Message-ID: <20190409203412.GE6150@zn.tnic>
References: <20190408141205.12376-1-Yazen.Ghannam@amd.com>
 <20190408141205.12376-3-Yazen.Ghannam@amd.com>
 <20190408175142.GK15689@zn.tnic>
 <SN6PR12MB26397E000684890C92075985F82C0@SN6PR12MB2639.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <SN6PR12MB26397E000684890C92075985F82C0@SN6PR12MB2639.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Apr 08, 2019 at 06:55:59PM +0000, Ghannam, Yazen wrote:
> We already have the case where some banks are not initialized either
> due to quirks or because they are Read-as-Zero, but we don't try to
> skip creating their files. With this full set (see patch 5), an unused
> bank will return a control value of 0.

So set_bank() is changed to do:

@@ -2088,7 +2097,7 @@ static ssize_t set_bank(struct device *s, struct device_attribute *attr,
        if (kstrtou64(buf, 0, &new) < 0)
                return -EINVAL;

-       if (bank >= mca_cfg.banks)
+       if (bank >= per_cpu(num_banks, s->id))
                return -EINVAL;


How would that work if the disabled/not-present bank is in the middle?
The old example: bank3 on CPU5.

> Would that be sufficient to indicate that a bank is not used?

Well, it should not allow for any control bits to be set and it should
have the proper bank number.

> But I do have a couple of thoughts:

> 1) Will missing banks confuse users? As mentioned, we already have the
> case of unused/uninitialized banks today, but we don't skip their file
> creation. a) Will this affect any userspace tools?

I guess it would be easier if we keep creating all files but denote properly
which banks are disabled.

> 2) Is the added complexity for file creation/destruction worth it? As
> mentioned, the file will return 0 for unused/uninitialized banks.

Yeah.

Thx.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

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