On 08/27/2012 08:18 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 04:55:12PM +0530, Naveen N. Rao wrote:
The ACPI spec doesn't provide for a way for the bios to pass down
recommended thresholds to the OS on a _per-bank_ basis. This patch adds
a new boot option, which if passed, allows bios to initialize the CMCI
threshold. In such a case, we simply skip programming any threshold
value.
As fail-safe, we initialize threshold to 1 if some banks have not been
initialized by the bios and warn the user.
Changes:
- Use the mce_boot_flags structure.
- Expose bios_cmci_threshold via sysfs.
Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao <[email protected]>
---
...
@@ -119,6 +146,12 @@ static void cmci_discover(int banks, int boot)
raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&cmci_discover_lock, flags);
if (hdr)
printk(KERN_CONT "\n");
+ if (boot && mce_boot_flags.bios_cmci_threshold && bios_wrong_thresh) {
+ printk_once(KERN_INFO
+ "bios_cmci_threshold: Some banks do not have valid
thresholds set");
+ printk_once(KERN_INFO
+ "bios_cmci_threshold: Make sure your BIOS supports this boot
option");
+ }
All functional changes aside, why do you want to print this at all? Does
it bring anything to the user?
Because if BIOS is systematically b0rked and we keep issuing this every
time do do cmci_discover, then we have a lotsa users to explain to what
happens.
Why not do a printk_once saying something along the lines of "BIOS
hasn't setup thresholds properly, correcting..." and that's it?
Yes, that's the intent here. I am using printk_once() and if I'm not
mistaken, we print the above only once during boot.
I am open to changing the message if the above two lines aren't good.
Thanks!
- Naveen
Tony?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
