Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-176555-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
Date: Sat, 11 May 2024 15:08:01 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Cc: "Fabio M. De Francesco" <fabio.m.de.francesco@linux.intel.com>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
	Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>, Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>,
	linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-edac@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 3/3] ACPI: extlog: Make print_extlog_rcd() log
 unconditionally
Message-ID: <20240511130801.GBZj9tsenZ5SKXgRTm@fat_crate.local>
References: <20240510112740.667445-1-fabio.m.de.francesco@linux.intel.com>
 <7009544.jJDZkT8p0M@fdefranc-mobl3>
 <20240510192556.GDZj50xFIWSqK2gzQR@fat_crate.local>
 <2881368.Ex9A2HvPv6@fdefranc-mobl3>
 <663e9bd4c2525_db82d29451@dwillia2-xfh.jf.intel.com.notmuch>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <663e9bd4c2525_db82d29451@dwillia2-xfh.jf.intel.com.notmuch>

On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 03:12:36PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> I had asked Fabio to take a look at whether it made sense to continue
> with the concept of ras_userspace_consumers() especially since it seems
> limited to the EXTLOG case.
> 
> In general I am finding that between OS Native and Firmware First error
> reporting the logging approaches are inconsistent.
> 
> As far I can see rasdaemon would not even notice is the "daemon_active"
> debugfs file went away [1],

It tells the kernel that it is consuming the error info from the
tracepoints.

> and it should be the case that the tracepoints always fire whether
> daemon_active is open or not.
>
> So I was expecting this removal to be a conversation starter on the
> wider topic of error reporting consistency.

Yeah, and then they'll come and say: ew, we're getting error duplicates
- once logged in dmesg and once through the tracepoints.

So just like with the other thread, we have to figure out what our
scheme will be wrt hw error logging, agree on it and then make it
consistent.

Do we want to have both? Should it be configurable? Probably...

Anything else...?

Thx.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

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