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;
From:   Lv Ying <lvying6@huawei.com>
To:     <rafael@kernel.org>, <lenb@kernel.org>, <james.morse@arm.com>,
        <tony.luck@intel.com>, <bp@alien8.de>, <naoya.horiguchi@nec.com>,
        <linmiaohe@huawei.com>, <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        <xueshuai@linux.alibaba.com>, <ashish.kalra@amd.com>
CC:     <xiezhipeng1@huawei.com>, <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com>,
        <xiexiuqi@huawei.com>, <tanxiaofei@huawei.com>,
        <cuibixuan@linux.alibaba.com>, <lvying6@huawei.com>,
        <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        <linux-mm@kvack.org>
Subject: [RFC PATCH v2 0/1] ACPI: APEI: Make synchronization errors call 
Date:   Fri, 9 Dec 2022 17:54:06 +0800
Message-ID: <20221209095407.383211-1-lvying6@huawei.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
Content-Type:   text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk

RFC PATCH v2 -> RFC PATCH v1 CHANGE:
====================================
1. based on Shuai and XiuQi's suggestion, this patchset just
consider SEA notification is synchronous error in APEI NMI-like
notification(NMI, SEA, SDEI)[1][2]
2. based on Bixuan's suggestion[3], based on the work of RFC PATCH v1 first
patch, the problem described in RFC PATCH V1 second patch commit message no
longer exists. Integrate the second patch into the first patch.[2]

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/5afef5fd-7e44-32ae-fa94-5fcf47d4b4df@linux.alibaba.com/
[2] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/6c9a17ad-fe68-bbb5-bb37-edbcfbbc2fee@huawei.com/
[3] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/ddc81946-8b76-ea49-ebf5-f2de2e30540d@linux.alibaba.com/

Lv Ying (1):
  ACPI: APEI: Make memory_failure() triggered by synchronization errors
    execute in the current context

 drivers/acpi/apei/ghes.c | 20 +++++++++-------
 mm/memory-failure.c      | 50 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
 2 files changed, 48 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)

-- 
2.36.1