RE: [PATCH v3] aerdrv: Move cper_print_aer() call out of interruptcontext

[Ortiz, Lance E]

> > +	/*
> > +	 * TODO: This function needs to be re-written so that it's output
> > +	 * matches the output of aer_print_error().  Right now, the
> output
> > +	 * is formatted very differently.
> > +	 */
> 
> So we have this big "TODO" comment sitting there very prominently ...
> which Linus
> is bound to ask about if I ask him to pull this into 3.10-rcX ...
> what's the impact of
> this?  What should I say when he asks why should he pull this fix into
> 3.10 when
> there is still some work to do?  Is matching the output no big deal and
> can wait for
> some future, while moving the pci bits to the work function needs to go
> in now?

Tony, 

You have a good point.  Ideally the console output should be the same in both the aer and the cper case.  The output in cper_print_error() does give us a reasonable amount of information, just not as detailed as I the aer case. Also now what we have the trace event for aer, the console output might be less important.  This TODO is a note for future clean-up and is not directly related to the bug being fixed with this patch.  Which lends to the argument of why put the TODO in this patch?  Opportunistic.  I donât think we want to create a separate patch just for a TODO note.  

So, why pull this patch in even though there is work to do?  The patch fixes a warning that might cause customers un-due concern and removes a call in interrupt context that should not be there.  

Lance
N‹§²æìr¸›yúèšØb²X¬¶ÇvØ^–)Þ{.nÇ+‰·¥Š{±‘êçzX§¶›¡Ü}©ž²ÆzÚ&j:+v‰¨¾«‘êçzZ+€Ê+zf£¢·hšˆ§~†­†Ûiÿûàz¹®w¥¢¸?™¨è­Ú&¢)ßf”ù^jÇy§m…á@A«a¶Úÿ0¶ìh®å’i