> @Tony: I'll send it upwards soonish in case there are no objections.
> This way no stable backport will be needed.
Acked-by: Tony Luck
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 11:13:14AM +0530, Naveen N. Rao wrote:
> On 10/17/2012 10:58 PM, Luck, Tony wrote:
> >BUT (squared) do you even really need to know that thresholds were set? You
> >could look at bits {52:38} in the MCi_STATUS information for the bank to see
> >how many corrected errors had
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 11:13:14AM +0530, Naveen N. Rao wrote:
On 10/17/2012 10:58 PM, Luck, Tony wrote:
BUT (squared) do you even really need to know that thresholds were set? You
could look at bits {52:38} in the MCi_STATUS information for the bank to see
how many corrected errors had been
@Tony: I'll send it upwards soonish in case there are no objections.
This way no stable backport will be needed.
Acked-by: Tony Luck tony.l...@intel.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo
On 10/17/2012 10:58 PM, Luck, Tony wrote:
BUT (squared) do you even really need to know that thresholds were set? You
could look at bits {52:38} in the MCi_STATUS information for the bank to see
how many corrected errors had been logged.
Ah, nice. I think we should be able to use this instead
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 05:28:11PM +, Luck, Tony wrote:
> > What's wrong with userspace tools parsing /proc/cmdline and seeing that
> > mce_bios_cmci_threshold has been set since this is the only way to set
> > it anyway?
>
> The argument might be on the command line, but may have been
> What's wrong with userspace tools parsing /proc/cmdline and seeing that
> mce_bios_cmci_threshold has been set since this is the only way to set
> it anyway?
The argument might be on the command line, but may have been rejected
because the BIOS didn't set the thresholds? So then you'd have to
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 09:17:39PM +0530, Naveen N. Rao wrote:
> Userspace tools need this sysfs attribute so they know how to react on
> receipt of a corrected error event: whether this is the first event or
> if such events have already been threshold-ed.
What's wrong with userspace tools
On 10/17/2012 06:39 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 04:57:30PM +0530, Naveen N. Rao wrote:
On 10/17/2012 04:29 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
+static struct dev_ext_attribute dev_attr_bios_cmci_threshold = {
+ __ATTR(bios_cmci_threshold, 0444, device_show_int, NULL),
+
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 04:57:30PM +0530, Naveen N. Rao wrote:
> On 10/17/2012 04:29 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> >>>
> >>>+static struct dev_ext_attribute dev_attr_bios_cmci_threshold = {
> >>>+ __ATTR(bios_cmci_threshold, 0444, device_show_int, NULL),
> >>>+ _bios_cmci_threshold
> >
> >Ok, I
On 10/17/2012 04:29 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
+static struct dev_ext_attribute dev_attr_bios_cmci_threshold = {
+ __ATTR(bios_cmci_threshold, 0444, device_show_int, NULL),
+ _bios_cmci_threshold
Ok, I just noticed this (we must've missed it during review) but why is
this
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 05:09:04PM +0530, Naveen N. Rao wrote:
> Hi Tony,
> Can you kindly take in this patch if there are no further comments?
>
> Thanks,
> Naveen
>
> On 09/12/2012 05:55 PM, Naveen N. Rao wrote:
> >The ACPI spec doesn't provide for a way for the bios to pass down
>
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 05:09:04PM +0530, Naveen N. Rao wrote:
Hi Tony,
Can you kindly take in this patch if there are no further comments?
Thanks,
Naveen
On 09/12/2012 05:55 PM, Naveen N. Rao wrote:
The ACPI spec doesn't provide for a way for the bios to pass down
recommended
On 10/17/2012 04:29 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
+static struct dev_ext_attribute dev_attr_bios_cmci_threshold = {
+ __ATTR(bios_cmci_threshold, 0444, device_show_int, NULL),
+ mce_bios_cmci_threshold
Ok, I just noticed this (we must've missed it during review) but why is
this
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 04:57:30PM +0530, Naveen N. Rao wrote:
On 10/17/2012 04:29 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
+static struct dev_ext_attribute dev_attr_bios_cmci_threshold = {
+ __ATTR(bios_cmci_threshold, 0444, device_show_int, NULL),
+ mce_bios_cmci_threshold
Ok, I just noticed this
On 10/17/2012 06:39 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 04:57:30PM +0530, Naveen N. Rao wrote:
On 10/17/2012 04:29 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
+static struct dev_ext_attribute dev_attr_bios_cmci_threshold = {
+ __ATTR(bios_cmci_threshold, 0444, device_show_int, NULL),
+
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 09:17:39PM +0530, Naveen N. Rao wrote:
Userspace tools need this sysfs attribute so they know how to react on
receipt of a corrected error event: whether this is the first event or
if such events have already been threshold-ed.
What's wrong with userspace tools parsing
What's wrong with userspace tools parsing /proc/cmdline and seeing that
mce_bios_cmci_threshold has been set since this is the only way to set
it anyway?
The argument might be on the command line, but may have been rejected
because the BIOS didn't set the thresholds? So then you'd have to look
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 05:28:11PM +, Luck, Tony wrote:
What's wrong with userspace tools parsing /proc/cmdline and seeing that
mce_bios_cmci_threshold has been set since this is the only way to set
it anyway?
The argument might be on the command line, but may have been rejected
On 10/17/2012 10:58 PM, Luck, Tony wrote:
BUT (squared) do you even really need to know that thresholds were set? You
could look at bits {52:38} in the MCi_STATUS information for the bank to see
how many corrected errors had been logged.
Ah, nice. I think we should be able to use this instead
Hi Tony,
Can you kindly take in this patch if there are no further comments?
Thanks,
Naveen
On 09/12/2012 05:55 PM, 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,
Hi Tony,
Can you kindly take in this patch if there are no further comments?
Thanks,
Naveen
On 09/12/2012 05:55 PM, 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,
22 matches
Mail list logo
