Hi gengdongjiu, On 26/02/18 16:13, gengdongjiu wrote: > 2018-02-24 1:58 GMT+08:00 James Morse <james.mo...@arm.com>: >> 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. > confusion, so I rename it to arm64_is_categorized_ras_serror(), then This is actually worse, because there is an architected ESR for 'uncategorized', that the helper papers-over and treats as uncontained. Calling it 'categorized' means we now have three states, not two. > this function is only used to > judge whether this is categorized RAS SError, > if it is categorized, the code will continue judge its Asynchronous Error > Type. > if it is uncategorized, the code will panic(this is the original code > logic) or not panic when we support kernel-first or can isolate the > SError Thanks, James _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
