RE: [PATCH v3 5/6] x86/MCE: Save MCA control bits that get set in hardware
From: Ghannam, Yazen
Date: Fri Jun 07 2019 - 12:48:43 EST
> -----Original Message-----
> From: linux-edac-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <linux-edac-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Borislav Petkov
> Sent: Friday, June 7, 2019 11:37 AM
> To: Ghannam, Yazen <Yazen.Ghannam@xxxxxxx>
> Cc: Luck, Tony <tony.luck@xxxxxxxxx>; linux-edac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; x86@xxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/6] x86/MCE: Save MCA control bits that get set in hardware
> On Fri, Jun 07, 2019 at 02:49:42PM +0000, Ghannam, Yazen wrote:
> > Would you mind if the function name stayed the same? The reason is
> > that MCA_CTL is written here, which is the "init" part, and MCA_STATUS
> > is cleared.
> > I can use another name for the check, e.g. __mcheck_cpu_check_banks()
> > or __mcheck_cpu_banks_check_init().
> Nevermind, leave it as is. I'll fix it up ontop. I don't like that
> "__mcheck_cpu_init" prefixing there which is a mouthful and should
> simply be "mce_cpu_<do_stuff>" to denote that it is a function which is
> run on a CPU to setup stuff.
Yeah, I agree.
I have another version of this set that I can send today. It includes the changes for this patch and also includes the fix for the locking bug message.
Should I send out the new version? Or do you want me to wait for any fixes on top of the current version?