RE: [PATCH v6 1/2] ACPI / APEI: Add support to notify the vendor specific HW errors

[Shiju Jose]

Hi Boris,

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Borislav Petkov [mailto:bp@xxxxxxxxx]
>Sent: 30 March 2020 14:43
>To: Shiju Jose <shiju.jose@xxxxxxxxxx>
>Cc: linux-acpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-pci@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-
>kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; helgaas@xxxxxxxxxx;
>lenb@xxxxxxxxxx; james.morse@xxxxxxx; tony.luck@xxxxxxxxx;
>gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; zhangliguang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
>tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Linuxarm <linuxarm@xxxxxxxxxx>; Jonathan Cameron
><jonathan.cameron@xxxxxxxxxx>; tanxiaofei <tanxiaofei@xxxxxxxxxx>;
>yangyicong <yangyicong@xxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/2] ACPI / APEI: Add support to notify the vendor
>specific HW errors
>
>On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 11:55:35AM +0000, Shiju Jose wrote:
>> The idea was the error handled field will help the decoding part of
>> the rasdaemon to do the appropriate steps for logging the vendor error
>> information depending on whether a corresponding kernel driver has
>> handled the error or not.
>
>What's the difference for rasdaemon whether the error has been handled or
>not?
Following are some of the examples of the usage of error handled status
in the vendor specific code of the rasdaemon,
1. rasdaemon need not to print the vendor error data reported by the firmware if the 
    kernel driver already print those information. In this case rasdaemon will only need to store
    the decoded vendor error data to the SQL database.  
2. If the vendor kernel driver want to report extra error information through
    the vendor specific data (though presently we do not have any such use case) for the rasdamon to log. 
    I think the error handled status useful to indicate that the kernel driver has filled the extra information and
    rasdaemon to decode and log them after extra data specific validity check.
      
>
>--
>Regards/Gruss,
>    Boris.
>
>https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette

Thanks,
Shiju