Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <737ba26b-d7c1-0014-d97f-33782ea4cd20@linux.alibaba.com>
Date:   Wed, 7 Dec 2022 20:56:03 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:102.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.5.0
Subject: Re: reply for ACPI: APEI: handle synchronous exceptions in task work
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Lv Ying <lvying6@huawei.com>
Cc:     akpm@linux-foundation.org, baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com,
        bp@alien8.de, cuibixuan@linux.alibaba.com,
        dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, james.morse@arm.com,
        jarkko@kernel.org, lenb@kernel.org, linmiaohe@huawei.com,
        linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        naoya.horiguchi@nec.com, rafael@kernel.org, tony.luck@intel.com,
        zhuo.song@linux.alibaba.com, xiezhipeng1@huawei.com,
        yingwen.cyw@alibaba-inc.com
References: <20221206153354.92394-1-xueshuai@linux.alibaba.com>
 <20221207095413.1980862-1-lvying6@huawei.com>
From:   Shuai Xue <xueshuai@linux.alibaba.com>
In-Reply-To: <20221207095413.1980862-1-lvying6@huawei.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk


On 2022/12/7 PM5:54, Lv Ying wrote:
> Hi Shuai Xue:
> 
> I notice that  we are both handling the same problem, my patchset:
> RFC: https://lkml.org/lkml/fancy/2022/12/5/364
> RFC PATCH v1: https://lkml.org/lkml/2022/12/7/244
> has CC to you 

I am glad to see that the community is trying to address the same problems,
I have replied to your RFC version.

> Yingwen's proposal in 2022/12/06[1]:
> Add Bit 8 in "Common Platform Error Record" -> "Section Descriptor" ->
> Flags (which Now, Bit 8 through 31 – Reserved) 
> 
> [1] https://members.uefi.org/wg/uswg/mail/thread/9453
> 
> Yingwen's proposal makes distinguish synchronous error by CPER report more
> easy, however, it's not supported yet.
> Looking forward to your reply if there is any progress on the proposal and
> your suggestions about my patchset.

Yes, it is not supported yet. So we separated synchronous error handling into
task work based on a similar flag internally.

We submitted the proposal last month after discussed with Tony. But there
is still no progress, I will update it here in time.

Cheers,
Shuai