Re: [PATCH v2 2/8] efi: Decode IA32/X64 Processor Error Section

On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 06:06:21PM +, Ghannam, Yazen wrote: > It's not just about arches but record types. A single platform can report > using arch-specific records, memory records, PCIe records, etc. > > So all the other record types only show fields with a valid bit set and this > has

Re: [PATCH v2 2/8] efi: Decode IA32/X64 Processor Error Section

On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 06:06:21PM +, Ghannam, Yazen wrote: > It's not just about arches but record types. A single platform can report > using arch-specific records, memory records, PCIe records, etc. > > So all the other record types only show fields with a valid bit set and this > has

RE: [PATCH v2 2/8] efi: Decode IA32/X64 Processor Error Section

t; Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/8] efi: Decode IA32/X64 Processor Error Section > > On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 05:27:39PM +, Ghannam, Yazen wrote: > > Sure, we can print the fields unconditionally if Ard is okay with that. > > > > The issue is that the x86 behavior will be

RE: [PATCH v2 2/8] efi: Decode IA32/X64 Processor Error Section

> -Original Message- > From: Borislav Petkov [mailto:b...@suse.de] > Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2018 12:45 PM > To: Ghannam, Yazen > Cc: linux-...@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; > ard.biesheu...@linaro.org; x...@kernel.org > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2

Re: [PATCH v2 2/8] efi: Decode IA32/X64 Processor Error Section

On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 05:27:39PM +, Ghannam, Yazen wrote: > Sure, we can print the fields unconditionally if Ard is okay with that. > > The issue is that the x86 behavior will be different from all the others, so > that > might be confusing. Confusing for whom? Are we sharing tools with

Re: [PATCH v2 2/8] efi: Decode IA32/X64 Processor Error Section

On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 05:27:39PM +, Ghannam, Yazen wrote: > Sure, we can print the fields unconditionally if Ard is okay with that. > > The issue is that the x86 behavior will be different from all the others, so > that > might be confusing. Confusing for whom? Are we sharing tools with

RE: [PATCH v2 2/8] efi: Decode IA32/X64 Processor Error Section

t; Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/8] efi: Decode IA32/X64 Processor Error Section > > On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 03:13:11PM +, Ghannam, Yazen wrote: > > I decided to print the Validation Bits as a sanity check for whomever is > looking > > at this. Since we only print fields with a

RE: [PATCH v2 2/8] efi: Decode IA32/X64 Processor Error Section

> -Original Message- > From: Borislav Petkov [mailto:b...@suse.de] > Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2018 12:01 PM > To: Ghannam, Yazen > Cc: linux-...@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; > ard.biesheu...@linaro.org; x...@kernel.org > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2

Re: [PATCH v2 2/8] efi: Decode IA32/X64 Processor Error Section

On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 03:13:11PM +, Ghannam, Yazen wrote: > I decided to print the Validation Bits as a sanity check for whomever is > looking > at this. Since we only print fields with a valid bit, it may be confusing for > users > who don't know why fields are missing. I suggested what

Re: [PATCH v2 2/8] efi: Decode IA32/X64 Processor Error Section

On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 03:13:11PM +, Ghannam, Yazen wrote: > I decided to print the Validation Bits as a sanity check for whomever is > looking > at this. Since we only print fields with a valid bit, it may be confusing for > users > who don't know why fields are missing. I suggested what

RE: [PATCH v2 2/8] efi: Decode IA32/X64 Processor Error Section

t; Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/8] efi: Decode IA32/X64 Processor Error Section > > On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 01:38:58PM -0600, Yazen Ghannam wrote: > > + * We don't need a "CPER_IA" prefix since these are all locally defined. > > + * This will save us a

RE: [PATCH v2 2/8] efi: Decode IA32/X64 Processor Error Section

> -Original Message- > From: Borislav Petkov [mailto:b...@suse.de] > Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2018 6:23 AM > To: Ghannam, Yazen > Cc: linux-...@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; > ard.biesheu...@linaro.org; x...@kernel.org > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/8]

Re: [PATCH v2 2/8] efi: Decode IA32/X64 Processor Error Section

On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 01:38:58PM -0600, Yazen Ghannam wrote: > + * We don't need a "CPER_IA" prefix since these are all locally defined. > + * This will save us a lot of line space. > + */ > +#define VALID_LAPIC_ID BIT_ULL(0) > +#define VALID_CPUID_INFO

Re: [PATCH v2 2/8] efi: Decode IA32/X64 Processor Error Section

On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 01:38:58PM -0600, Yazen Ghannam wrote: > + * We don't need a "CPER_IA" prefix since these are all locally defined. > + * This will save us a lot of line space. > + */ > +#define VALID_LAPIC_ID BIT_ULL(0) > +#define VALID_CPUID_INFO

[PATCH v2 2/8] efi: Decode IA32/X64 Processor Error Section

From: Yazen Ghannam Recognize the IA32/X64 Processor Error Section. Do the section decoding in a new "cper-x86.c" file and add this to the Makefile depending on a new "UEFI_CPER_X86" config option. Print the Local APIC ID and CPUID info from the Processor Error Record.

[PATCH v2 2/8] efi: Decode IA32/X64 Processor Error Section

From: Yazen Ghannam Recognize the IA32/X64 Processor Error Section. Do the section decoding in a new "cper-x86.c" file and add this to the Makefile depending on a new "UEFI_CPER_X86" config option. Print the Local APIC ID and CPUID info from the Processor Error Record. The "Processor Error