On Wed, 2010-05-19 at 16:35 +1000, Mark Nelson wrote: > Hi Michael, > > Thanks for looking over these patches! .. > > > > Existing code I know, but the error handling in here is a little lax, > > what's not going to work if we miss some or all of the interrupts? > > That's a good point. For the existing code, if we miss an EPOW event > it just means that the event won't be logged (as that's all we do with > those events at the moment, although there is a comment saying > that it should be fixed to take appropriate action depending upon the > type of power failure); but it's a bigger problem if we miss one of the > RAS errors because then we could miss a fatal event that we should halt > the machine on. And for the upcoming IO events it's even worse as we'd > miss an interrupt from the device...
Yeah that's what I was thinking. > I would do it in a follow-on patch rather than this one, but what would > be a good course of action if we can't request the interrupt? Yes a follow on patch is the way to do it. There shouldn't be that many reasons the request fails, other than ENOMEM, or broken device tree perhaps. It's definitely worth a WARN_ON(), people notice those at least. cheers
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
