Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 28 Aug 2012 12:47:30 +0530 | From | "Naveen N. Rao" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86/mce: Pack boolean MCE boot flags into a structure |
| |
On 08/28/2012 01:48 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 10:44:40PM +0530, Naveen N. Rao wrote: >> Looks good. Infact, I had actually added mce_ser and mce_disabled >> into the bitfield, but backed off not wanting to overdo. >> >> We could pull in all the other configuration parameters into this >> structure as long as everyone is ok with this. > > Well, if you'd like, you can make one change per patch so that they can > be easily reviewable.
Ok.
> >>> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/mce.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/mce.h >>> index a3ac52b29cbf..e5cfd241e508 100644 >>> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/mce.h >>> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/mce.h >>> @@ -126,7 +126,6 @@ struct mce_log { >>> #define K8_MCE_THRESHOLD_BANK_5 (MCE_THRESHOLD_BASE + 5 * 9) >>> #define K8_MCE_THRESHOLD_DRAM_ECC (MCE_THRESHOLD_BANK_4 + 0) >>> >>> - >>> #ifdef __KERNEL__ >>> >>> extern void mce_register_decode_chain(struct notifier_block *nb); >>> @@ -169,8 +168,6 @@ DECLARE_PER_CPU(struct device *, mce_device); >>> #define MAX_NR_BANKS 32 >>> >>> #ifdef CONFIG_X86_MCE_INTEL >>> -extern int mce_cmci_disabled; >>> -extern int mce_ignore_ce; >>> void mce_intel_feature_init(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c); >>> void cmci_clear(void); >>> void cmci_reenable(void); >>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce-internal.h b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce-internal.h >>> index 6a05c1d327a9..3b25bcf452d9 100644 >>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce-internal.h >>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce-internal.h >>> @@ -28,6 +28,15 @@ extern int mce_ser; >>> >>> extern struct mce_bank *mce_banks; >>> >>> +struct mce_cfg { >>> + __u32 cmci_disabled : 1, >>> + ignore_ce : 1, >>> + dont_log_ce : 1, >>> + __pad : 29; >>> +}; >>> + >>> +extern struct mce_cfg cfg; >>> + >> >> I'd prefer mce_cfg, rather than just cfg. I think it looks clearer >> to say, for instance, mce_ser.ignore_ce rather than just >> cfg.ignore_ce where the latter looks more like a global thing. But, >> of course, the former is more concise... > > Yes, > > * it is more consise > * it is private to mce so no ambiguity > * having identical struct name and variable names is very confusing (at least > to me) > > so you can do > > extern struct mce_cfg m_cfg; > > or > > extern struct mce_config mcfg; > > or similar but please keep struct name and variable name different.
Sure - I thought this was commonly done, but it is indeed confusing. I'll change it.
Thanks, Naveen
> > Thanks. >
| |