On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 05:28:58PM +0100, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
> On 13/10/16 20:37, Baicar, Tyler wrote:
> >On 10/13/2016 2:50 AM, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
> >>Is it always the same endianness as that of the CPU ?
> >
> >It is a fair assumption that the firmware populating this record will
>
On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 05:28:58PM +0100, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
> On 13/10/16 20:37, Baicar, Tyler wrote:
> >On 10/13/2016 2:50 AM, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
> >>Is it always the same endianness as that of the CPU ?
> >
> >It is a fair assumption that the firmware populating this record will
>
On 13/10/16 20:37, Baicar, Tyler wrote:
Hello Suzuki,
On 10/13/2016 2:50 AM, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
On 12/10/16 23:10, Baicar, Tyler wrote:
Please could you keep the people who reviewed/commented on your series in the
past,
whenever you post a new version ?
Do you mean to just send the
On 13/10/16 20:37, Baicar, Tyler wrote:
Hello Suzuki,
On 10/13/2016 2:50 AM, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
On 12/10/16 23:10, Baicar, Tyler wrote:
Please could you keep the people who reviewed/commented on your series in the
past,
whenever you post a new version ?
Do you mean to just send the
Hello Suzuki,
On 10/13/2016 2:50 AM, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
On 12/10/16 23:10, Baicar, Tyler wrote:
Hello Suzuki,
Thank you for the feedback! Responses below.
On 10/11/2016 11:28 AM, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
On 07/10/16 22:31, Tyler Baicar wrote:
Currently when a RAS error is reported it
Hello Suzuki,
On 10/13/2016 2:50 AM, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
On 12/10/16 23:10, Baicar, Tyler wrote:
Hello Suzuki,
Thank you for the feedback! Responses below.
On 10/11/2016 11:28 AM, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
On 07/10/16 22:31, Tyler Baicar wrote:
Currently when a RAS error is reported it
On 12/10/16 23:10, Baicar, Tyler wrote:
Hello Suzuki,
Thank you for the feedback! Responses below.
On 10/11/2016 11:28 AM, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
On 07/10/16 22:31, Tyler Baicar wrote:
Currently when a RAS error is reported it is not timestamped.
The ACPI 6.1 spec adds the timestamp field
On 12/10/16 23:10, Baicar, Tyler wrote:
Hello Suzuki,
Thank you for the feedback! Responses below.
On 10/11/2016 11:28 AM, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
On 07/10/16 22:31, Tyler Baicar wrote:
Currently when a RAS error is reported it is not timestamped.
The ACPI 6.1 spec adds the timestamp field
Hello Suzuki,
Thank you for the feedback! Responses below.
On 10/11/2016 11:28 AM, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
On 07/10/16 22:31, Tyler Baicar wrote:
Currently when a RAS error is reported it is not timestamped.
The ACPI 6.1 spec adds the timestamp field to the generic error
data entry v3
Hello Suzuki,
Thank you for the feedback! Responses below.
On 10/11/2016 11:28 AM, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
On 07/10/16 22:31, Tyler Baicar wrote:
Currently when a RAS error is reported it is not timestamped.
The ACPI 6.1 spec adds the timestamp field to the generic error
data entry v3
Hello Russell,
Thank you for the feedback! Responses below
On 10/11/2016 12:52 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 03:31:14PM -0600, Tyler Baicar wrote:
+static void cper_estatus_print_section_v300(const char *pfx,
+ const struct acpi_hest_generic_data_v300
Hello Russell,
Thank you for the feedback! Responses below
On 10/11/2016 12:52 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 03:31:14PM -0600, Tyler Baicar wrote:
+static void cper_estatus_print_section_v300(const char *pfx,
+ const struct acpi_hest_generic_data_v300
On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 03:31:14PM -0600, Tyler Baicar wrote:
> +static void cper_estatus_print_section_v300(const char *pfx,
> + const struct acpi_hest_generic_data_v300 *gdata)
> +{
> + __u8 hour, min, sec, day, mon, year, century, *timestamp;
> +
> + if (gdata->validation_bits &
On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 03:31:14PM -0600, Tyler Baicar wrote:
> +static void cper_estatus_print_section_v300(const char *pfx,
> + const struct acpi_hest_generic_data_v300 *gdata)
> +{
> + __u8 hour, min, sec, day, mon, year, century, *timestamp;
> +
> + if (gdata->validation_bits &
On 07/10/16 22:31, Tyler Baicar wrote:
Currently when a RAS error is reported it is not timestamped.
The ACPI 6.1 spec adds the timestamp field to the generic error
data entry v3 structure. The timestamp of when the firmware
generated the error is now being reported.
Signed-off-by: Jonathan
On 07/10/16 22:31, Tyler Baicar wrote:
Currently when a RAS error is reported it is not timestamped.
The ACPI 6.1 spec adds the timestamp field to the generic error
data entry v3 structure. The timestamp of when the firmware
generated the error is now being reported.
Signed-off-by: Jonathan
Currently when a RAS error is reported it is not timestamped.
The ACPI 6.1 spec adds the timestamp field to the generic error
data entry v3 structure. The timestamp of when the firmware
generated the error is now being reported.
Signed-off-by: Jonathan (Zhixiong) Zhang
Currently when a RAS error is reported it is not timestamped.
The ACPI 6.1 spec adds the timestamp field to the generic error
data entry v3 structure. The timestamp of when the firmware
generated the error is now being reported.
Signed-off-by: Jonathan (Zhixiong) Zhang
Signed-off-by: Richard
18 matches
Mail list logo