On 12.07.2023 21:59, Elliott Mitchell wrote: > This series has been seen previously. The issue is pretty simple, if > ACPI errors occur there is a high probability they will occur on multiple > cores at once.
Nit: Both here and in the title s/ACPI/APIC/, to not misguide people about the area the series touches (just in case a v4 might be needed). Jan > Since there is no locking for `printk()` there is a need > to emit the entire error with a single `printk()`. > > I believe this is roughly where things left off. The loop adjustment had > been requested to be broken into a separate step. I had also goofed when > adjusting the handling and the string order had gotten reversed. > > I'm unsure how best to make the `printk()` more maintainable. Yet more > "%s" and entries[#] will be needed if additional bits get defined. I'm > inclined to keep the string broken apart to hint as to how it matches > the entry list. I'm okay with everything being fully concatenated if > that is felt best. > > > Elliott Mitchell (3): > x86/APIC: include full string with error_interrupt() error messages > x86/APIC: modify error_interrupt() to output using single printk() > x86/APIC: adjustments to error_interrupt() loop > > xen/arch/x86/apic.c | 32 +++++++++++++++++--------------- > 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) >
