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, 1 Nov 2019 16:54:12 +0100
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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/6] AMD64 EDAC: Check for nodes without memory, etc.
Message-ID: <20191101155412.GA2300@nazgul.tnic>
References: <20191022203448.13962-1-Yazen.Ghannam@amd.com>
 <20191025133456.GA6483@zn.tnic>
 <BYAPR12MB2630ED1425A3F01727E1C45BF8620@BYAPR12MB2630.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <BYAPR12MB2630ED1425A3F01727E1C45BF8620@BYAPR12MB2630.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 03:19:36PM +0000, Ghannam, Yazen wrote:
> Is the module being probed twice? We have this problem in general, e.g. the
> module gets loaded multiple times on failure.

Yap, it looks like it.

> The clue for me is that node 0 gets detected twice. This is done in
> per_family_init() early in probe_one_instance().
>
> In any case, I think we can make !ecc_enabled(pvt) in probe_one_instance() a
> failure now that we have an explicit check for memory on a node. In other
> words, if we have memory and ECC is disabled then this is a failure for the
> module.

Yeah, for that case we should be printing ecc_msg. Makes sense.

Thx.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.
--