Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 14 Dec 2011 17:55:00 +0100 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/6] HWPOISON: clean up memory_failure() vs. __memory_failure() |
| |
* Borislav Petkov <bp@amd64.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 08:47:49AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > -/* dummy to break dependency. actual code is in mm/memory-failure.c */ > > > -void __attribute__((weak)) memory_failure(unsigned long pfn, int vector) > > > +#ifndef CONFIG_MEMORY_FAILURE > > > +int memory_failure(unsigned long pfn, int vector, int flags) > > > { > > > printk(KERN_ERR "Action optional memory failure at %lx ignored\n", pfn); > > > > Btw., while at it, could we phrase this message in a more > > obvious way to users, such as 'Non-fatal memory failure at > > %lx ignored'? > > Yeah, that's might not be as correct as we want it to be. AO > means it is an uncorrectable error, i.e. it will become fatal > if we'd consumed it, but it isn't that now because we just saw > it passing by in the cacheline... > > Maybe "Fatal, unconsumed error ignored..."
There's also the distinction that tells us which context is affected by an error: the currently executing task/mm, or some other one.
So you can keep the terminology i guess lacking a better alternative, i just wanted to point out that it's likely confusing to users.
Thanks,
Ingo
| |