Message-ID: <1337905811.14538.206.camel@ymzhang.sh.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] printk: ignore recursion_bug flag in HW error handle
 process
From: Yanmin Zhang <yanmin_zhang@linux.intel.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>, ShuoX Liu <shuox.liu@intel.com>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        andi@firstfloor.org, Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 08:30:11 +0800
In-Reply-To: <20120524155611.b7aeff4d.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
References: <4FBC444A.6060500@intel.com>
	 <20120523100138.GA13506@x1.osrc.amd.com> <4FBDCE4A.7050900@intel.com>
	 <20120524061145.GA18284@liondog.tnic>
	 <20120524155611.b7aeff4d.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Organization: MCG
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2382
Lines: 67

On Thu, 2012-05-24 at 15:56 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 24 May 2012 08:11:45 +0200
> Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> wrote:
> 
> > > +/* HW error handle status helpers */
> > > +extern atomic_t hw_error;
> > > +static inline void hw_error_enter(void)
> > > +{
> > > +	atomic_inc(&hw_error);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static inline void hw_error_exit(void)
> > > +{
> > > +	atomic_dec(&hw_error);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static inline int in_hw_error(void)
> > > +{
> > > +	return atomic_read(&hw_error);
> > > +}
> > 
> > Shouldn't those be generic empty functions and each arch implement their
> > own with the stuff they want to do on the respective architecture when
> > they get a hardware error?
> 
> This code needs documentation.
> 
> Specifically, it should clearly explain (and hence define) what a
> "hardware error" *is*, and for what purpose this code exists.
> 
> Because as it stands, this interface is hopelessly vague.  Once one
> sees that it is *specifically* used for handling mce within a printk,
> it all makes sense.
> 
> And with that understanding comes the realisation that the interface is
> poorly named.  It will not be used for any purpose other than adjusting
> printk() behavior so it should mention printk() in its name and in its
> comments and probably it should all be moved into printk.h.
> 
> Futhermore, this code is not really related to MCE or hardware or
> anything else.  It is simply a way in which callers can suppress
> printk()'s recursion check.  Callers are free to use it for reasons
> other than "hardware errors".
> 
> And once all that is done, and this interface becomes part of printk()
> then no, there is no need to add per-arch hooks.  An arch can call into
> printk_recursion_check_disable() and printk_recursion_chack_enable() -
> nice and simple.
> 
> 
> IOW, the title of this patch should be
> 
> 	[patch 1/2] printk: add interface for disabling recursion check
> 	[patch 2/2] x86 mce: use new printk recursion disabling interface
Andrew,

Thanks for the detailed comment. It's more reasonable to bind it to printk.
We would follow it to create new patches.

Yanmin


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/