On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 11:54:25AM -0700, Luck, Tony wrote: > Couple of thoughts:
Thanks for looking. > In "x86/mce: Carve out bank scanning code" you drop the extra > call to mce_severity() that I just added: Yeah, did that before we talked about it. > In "x86/mce: Exit properly when no banks to poll" you > leap right to the end. I'm wondering whether this can > ever happen? I mean, if there are no machine check banks, > then how did we get a machine check? Right, so this looks like some remnant from old times, lemme do some archeology... /me goes and dusts off the full history linux repo... I found this: commit 7dd1e1d805d15ca63d05badf40026629ba75cbc8 Author: Andi Kleen <[email protected]> Date: Tue Feb 24 17:58:41 2004 -0800 [PATCH] New machine check handler for x86-64 and there's no mention why the !banks check is there. I'm wondering if we should simply remove it. I mean, as you say, if there are no MCA banks, we won't be running in here in the first place... > Both the original, and your new code, skip the: > > mce_wrmsrl(MSR_IA32_MCG_STATUS, 0); > > which seems bad. That leaves MCG_STATUS.MCIP set ... so a second > machine check would just reset the machine. That's a good point. It goes away as an issue if we simply drop the check. > P.S. What happened to my "part 3/3" (updating the Skylake quirk) > ... does that belong in somebody else's tree? Simply hadn't reached it yet. I will take it too, eventually. Thx. -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. SUSE Linux GmbH, GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg) --
