On 7/31/2017 11:00 AM, Luck, Tony wrote:Hi Tony,
On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 10:15:27AM -0600, Baicar, Tyler wrote:Thank you Tony for the feedback, I can add a print like this in the next version. I'll verify that
I think the better thing to do in this case is still send the ack. IfRight now we silently handle that failure of ghes_read_estatus(). That
ghes_read_estatus() fails, then
either we are unable to read the estatus or the estatus is empty/invalid.
might be hiding some Linux bugs if we are calling ghes_proc() in cases
where we shouldn't.
Perhaps we should have something like this, so if systems do start acting
weirdly there will be a note that we took this path:
rc = ghes_read_estatus(ghes, 0);
if (rc) {
pr_notice("surprise failure reading ghes estatus\n");
goto out;
}
rc is not -ENOENT though so we don't print it on empty scenarios since the polled source
will be hitting this path frequently.
If we do not send the ack, then we will be in a scenario where FW will notWe might ACK something that the firmware didn't send, which may
send any more errors.
lead to other problems.
I think it would be better to still have the FW send the errors and kernelBut I agree with this. We should send the ACK. Luckliy this doesn't have
complain about issues with
a long legacy problem because the whole ACK mechanism is a new thing. So
we only have to worry about GHESv2 supporting BIOS.
-Tony