Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Wed, 5 May 2021 23:04:44 +0200
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To:     Tyler Hicks <tyhicks@linux.microsoft.com>
Cc:     wangglei <wangglei@gmail.com>,
        "Lei Wang (DPLAT)" <Wang.Lei@microsoft.com>,
        "mchehab@kernel.org" <mchehab@kernel.org>,
        "tony.luck@intel.com" <tony.luck@intel.com>,
        "james.morse@arm.com" <james.morse@arm.com>,
        "rric@kernel.org" <rric@kernel.org>,
        "linux-edac@vger.kernel.org" <linux-edac@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Hang Li <hangl@microsoft.com>,
        Brandon Waller <bwaller@microsoft.com>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [PATCH] EDAC: update edac printk wrappers to use
 printk_ratelimited.
Message-ID: <YJMIbB31oEDaXm0C@zn.tnic>
References: <20210505173027.78428-1-wangglei@gmail.com>
 <YJLdZCcsgWG6TrKz@zn.tnic>
 <SJ0PR21MB199984A8B47FBEECEC5D11CE90599@SJ0PR21MB1999.namprd21.prod.outlook.com>
 <YJL1vU6HNBWPKy8g@zn.tnic>
 <20210505202357.GC4967@sequoia>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20210505202357.GC4967@sequoia>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, May 05, 2021 at 03:23:57PM -0500, Tyler Hicks wrote:
>  Would it be any more acceptable to add an
> edac_mc_printk_ratelimited() macro, which uses printk_ratelimited(),
> and then call that new macro from edac_ce_error()?

You guys are way off here: the intent of EDAC drivers is to accurately
report errors for purposes of counting them and doing analysis on
that collected data as to whether components are going wrong - not to
ratelimit them as some nuisance output.

With breaking the EDAC reporting, you're barking up the wrong tree - if
you don't want to see those errors, do not load the drivers. It is that
simple.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette