> -Original Message-
> From: linux-edac-ow...@vger.kernel.org On
> Behalf Of Borislav Petkov
> Sent: Monday, August 26, 2019 9:59 AM
> To: Ghannam, Yazen
> Cc: Adam Borowski ; linux-e...@vger.kernel.org;
> linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH
On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 02:19:18PM +, Ghannam, Yazen wrote:
> I was tracking down the failure with ECC disabled, and that seems to be it.
>
> So I think we should return 0 "if (!edac_has_mcs())", because we'd only get
> there if ECC is disabled on all nodes and there wasn't some other
>
> -Original Message-
> From: linux-edac-ow...@vger.kernel.org On
> Behalf Of Borislav Petkov
> Sent: Friday, August 23, 2019 10:38 AM
> To: Ghannam, Yazen
> Cc: Adam Borowski ; linux-e...@vger.kernel.org;
> linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 03:28:59PM +, Ghannam, Yazen wrote:
> Boris, Do you think it'd be appropriate to change the return values
> for some cases?
>
> For example, ECC disabled is a hardware configuration. This doesn't
> mean that the module failed any operations in this case.
>
> In other
> -Original Message-
> From: linux-edac-ow...@vger.kernel.org On
> Behalf Of Ghannam, Yazen
> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2019 1:54 PM
> To: Adam Borowski
> Cc: linux-e...@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; b...@alien8.de
> Subject: RE: [PATCH v3
> -Original Message-
> From: linux-edac-ow...@vger.kernel.org On
> Behalf Of Adam Borowski
> Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2019 7:50 PM
> To: Ghannam, Yazen
> Cc: linux-e...@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; b...@alien8.de
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3
On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 11:46:07AM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> Yeah, some of messages are no longer emitted for memory-less nodes (NUMA 1
> and 3). Your patch set also overhauls the messages.
Not my patchset - Yazen's.
> But, the amount of redundant messages I'm complaining about has actually
On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 10:35:48AM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 02:50:20AM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > While you're editing that code, could you please also cut the spam if ECC is
> > actually disabled? For example, a 2990WX with non-ECC RAM gets 1024 lines;
>
>
On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 02:50:20AM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> While you're editing that code, could you please also cut the spam if ECC is
> actually disabled? For example, a 2990WX with non-ECC RAM gets 1024 lines;
Patch is in there. I'll give you extra points if you spot it.
> Meow!
Wuff!
On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 11:59:53PM +, Ghannam, Yazen wrote:
> I've also added RFC patches to avoid the "ECC disabled" message for
> nodes without memory. I haven't fully tested these, but I wanted to get
> your thoughts. Here's an earlier discussion:
>
10 matches
Mail list logo
