Re: [PATCH] arm64: rename the function arm64_is_ras_serror() to avoid confusion

[gengdongjiu]

Hi James,

> Hi gengdongjiu,
> 
> On 26/02/18 16:13, gengdongjiu wrote:
> > 2018-02-24 1:58 GMT+08:00 James Morse <james.morse@xxxxxxx>:
> >> On 22/02/18 18:02, Dongjiu Geng wrote:
> >>> The RAS SError Syndrome can be Implementation-Defined,
> >>> arm64_is_ras_serror() is used to judge whether it is RAS SError, but
> >>> arm64_is_ras_serror() does not include this judgement. In order to
> >>> avoid function name confusion, we rename the arm64_is_ras_serror()
> >>> to arm64_is_categorized_ras_serror(), this function is used to judge
> >>> whether it is categorized RAS Serror.
> >>
> >> I don't see how 'categorized' is relevant. The most significant ISS
> >> bit is used to determine if this is an IMP-DEF ESR, or one that uses the architected layout.
> >
> > From the name arm64_is_ras_serror(), it used to judge whether this is
> > RAS Serror, but arm64_is_ras_serror() think the IMP-DEF SError is not
> > RAS SError, as shown the code note and code in[1].
> 
> > In fact the IMP-DEF SError is also RAS SError, so when I read the
> > code, it looks like
> 
> This is just you then. No-one else has your imp-def:RAS error ESR values.
> 
> This would be like me adding some impdef branch instruction, then claiming
> aarch64_insn_is_branch() doesn't take account of my private additions.
> 
> I agree the name is assuming all architected ESR are RAS-errors, and that impdef ESR are just that: impdef, that's all we know about them.
> Unless this causes us to do the wrong thing, I don't think it matters.
> Obviously we would need to change it if a new architected ESR is added.

Ok, let us keep the current code and not change it until a new architected ESR is added