Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1531018 > unrolled thread

linux-next: manual merge of the edac-amd tree with the edac tree

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

Contents

  linux-next: manual merge of the edac-amd tree with the edac tree Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> - 2016-11-28 04:40 +0100
    Re: linux-next: manual merge of the edac-amd tree with the edac tree Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> - 2016-11-28 09:30 +0100
      Re: linux-next: manual merge of the edac-amd tree with the edac  tree Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@osg.samsung.com> - 2016-11-30 12:00 +0100
        Re: linux-next: manual merge of the edac-amd tree with the edac tree Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> - 2016-12-01 11:50 +0100
          Re: linux-next: manual merge of the edac-amd tree with the edac  tree Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@osg.samsung.com> - 2016-12-01 13:10 +0100
            Re: linux-next: manual merge of the edac-amd tree with the edac tree Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> - 2016-12-01 19:20 +0100

#1531018 — linux-next: manual merge of the edac-amd tree with the edac tree

Hi Borislav,

Today's linux-next merge of the edac-amd tree got a conflict in:

  drivers/edac/edac_mc.c

between commit:

  ef91afa61088 ("edac: move documentation from edac_mc.c to edac_core.h")

from the edac tree and commit:

  c73e8833bec5 ("EDAC, mc: Fix locking around mc_devices list")

from the edac-amd tree.

I fixed it up (see below - there may be more fixes needed in
edac_core.h) and can carry the fix as necessary. This is now fixed as
far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial conflicts should be
mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree is submitted for
merging.  You may also want to consider cooperating with the maintainer
of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly complex conflicts.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

diff --cc drivers/edac/edac_mc.c
index d50653d36918,d2ea9c4f1824..000000000000
--- a/drivers/edac/edac_mc.c
+++ b/drivers/edac/edac_mc.c
@@@ -470,6 -499,24 +470,17 @@@ static struct mem_ctl_info *__find_mci_
  
  	return NULL;
  }
+ 
 -/**
 - * find_mci_by_dev
 - *
 - *	scan list of controllers looking for the one that manages
 - *	the 'dev' device
 - * @dev: pointer to a struct device related with the MCI
 - */
+ struct mem_ctl_info *find_mci_by_dev(struct device *dev)
+ {
+ 	struct mem_ctl_info *ret;
+ 
+ 	mutex_lock(&mem_ctls_mutex);
+ 	ret = __find_mci_by_dev(dev);
+ 	mutex_unlock(&mem_ctls_mutex);
+ 
+ 	return ret;
+ }
  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(find_mci_by_dev);
  
  /*
@@@ -599,10 -646,18 +610,12 @@@ static int del_mc_from_global_list(stru
  	return handlers;
  }
  
 -/**
 - * edac_mc_find: Search for a mem_ctl_info structure whose index is 'idx'.
 - *
 - * If found, return a pointer to the structure.
 - * Else return NULL.
 - */
  struct mem_ctl_info *edac_mc_find(int idx)
  {
+ 	struct mem_ctl_info *mci = NULL;
  	struct list_head *item;
- 	struct mem_ctl_info *mci;
+ 
+ 	mutex_lock(&mem_ctls_mutex);
  
  	list_for_each(item, &mc_devices) {
  		mci = list_entry(item, struct mem_ctl_info, link);

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1531107

On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 02:37:26PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Borislav,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the edac-amd tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   drivers/edac/edac_mc.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   ef91afa61088 ("edac: move documentation from edac_mc.c to edac_core.h")
> 
> from the edac tree and commit:
> 
>   c73e8833bec5 ("EDAC, mc: Fix locking around mc_devices list")
> 
> from the edac-amd tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (see below - there may be more fixes needed in
> edac_core.h) and can carry the fix as necessary. This is now fixed as
> far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial conflicts should be
> mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree is submitted for
> merging.  You may also want to consider cooperating with the maintainer
> of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly complex conflicts.

Just one issue which has nothing to do with linux-next. There's still
that in ef91afa61088:

> +/**
> + * edac_mc_find: Search for a mem_ctl_info structure whose index is @idx.
> + *
> + * @idx: index to be seek
> + *
> + * If found, return a pointer to the structure.
> + * Else return NULL.
> + *
> + * Caller must hold mem_ctls_mutex.
> + */

That last sentence in the comment is not true anymore - edac_mc_find()
is grabbing the mutex itself as it should be. Mauro, please fix that in
your tree.

Thanks.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1533217 — Re: linux-next: manual merge of the edac-amd tree with the edac tree

Em Mon, 28 Nov 2016 09:27:35 +0100
Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> escreveu:

> On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 02:37:26PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi Borislav,
> > 
> > Today's linux-next merge of the edac-amd tree got a conflict in:
> > 
> >   drivers/edac/edac_mc.c
> > 
> > between commit:
> > 
> >   ef91afa61088 ("edac: move documentation from edac_mc.c to edac_core.h")
> > 
> > from the edac tree and commit:
> > 
> >   c73e8833bec5 ("EDAC, mc: Fix locking around mc_devices list")
> > 
> > from the edac-amd tree.
> > 
> > I fixed it up (see below - there may be more fixes needed in
> > edac_core.h) and can carry the fix as necessary. This is now fixed as
> > far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial conflicts should be
> > mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree is submitted for
> > merging.  You may also want to consider cooperating with the maintainer
> > of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly complex conflicts.  
> 
> Just one issue which has nothing to do with linux-next. There's still
> that in ef91afa61088:
> 
> > +/**
> > + * edac_mc_find: Search for a mem_ctl_info structure whose index is @idx.
> > + *
> > + * @idx: index to be seek
> > + *
> > + * If found, return a pointer to the structure.
> > + * Else return NULL.
> > + *
> > + * Caller must hold mem_ctls_mutex.
> > + */  
> 
> That last sentence in the comment is not true anymore - edac_mc_find()
> is grabbing the mutex itself as it should be. Mauro, please fix that in
> your tree.

Fixed. If you have a stable branch, I can rebase it on the top
of your patches, in order to avoid the confict at linux-next.

Regards,
Mauro

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1533962

On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 08:50:13AM -0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> Fixed. If you have a stable branch, I can rebase it on the top
> of your patches, in order to avoid the confict at linux-next.

http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/bp/bp.git/log/?h=for-next

but with that fixed, shouldn't the merge work without a conflict?

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1534005 — Re: linux-next: manual merge of the edac-amd tree with the edac tree

Em Thu, 1 Dec 2016 11:48:46 +0100
Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> escreveu:

> On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 08:50:13AM -0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> > Fixed. If you have a stable branch, I can rebase it on the top
> > of your patches, in order to avoid the confict at linux-next.
> 
> http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/bp/bp.git/log/?h=for-next

Thanks!

> but with that fixed, shouldn't the merge work without a conflict?

Well, we're removing some lines from one file and adding them on another
one. Git is not smart enough to solve such conflicts automatically:

	CONFLICT (content): Merge conflict in drivers/edac/edac_mc.c
	Recorded preimage for 'drivers/edac/edac_mc.c'
	Automatic merge failed; fix conflicts and then commit the result.

Anyway, I rebased my work on the top of your branch. The conflict
is now gone:

	https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/mchehab/linux-edac.git/log/?h=linux_next

You can see the generated documentation at:
	https://mchehab.fedorapeople.org/kernel_docs/admin-guide/ras.html
	(user and admin guide)
and:
	https://mchehab.fedorapeople.org/kernel_docs/driver-api/edac.html
	(kernel API)

However, rebasing over your tree showed a new documentation gap:
	./include/linux/edac.h:144: warning: Enum value 'HW_EVENT_ERR_DEFERRED' not described in enum 'hw_event_mc_err_type'

With was introduced by this commit:

  commit d12a969ebbfcfc25853c4147d42b388f758e8784
  Author: Yazen Ghannam <Yazen.Ghannam@amd.com>
  Date:   Thu Nov 17 17:57:32 2016 -0500

    EDAC, amd64: Add Deferred Error type
    
    Currently, deferred errors are classified as correctable in EDAC. Add a
    new error type for deferred errors so that they are correctly reported
    to the user.
    
    Signed-off-by: Yazen Ghannam <Yazen.Ghannam@amd.com>
    Cc: Aravind Gopalakrishnan <aravindksg.lkml@gmail.com>
    Cc: linux-edac <linux-edac@vger.kernel.org>
    Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1479423463-8536-7-git-send-email-Yazen.Ghannam@amd.com
    Signed-off-by: Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>


Yazen introduced a "deferred error" code (whatever it means), but didn't
document what's that. Unfortunately, the patch description is also
not clear enough about what a "deferred error" means or how userspace
is supposed to handle it.

Yazen,

Could you please send us a patch adding a proper description for this
new error code?

Thanks!
Mauro

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1534365

On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 11:02:04AM -0500, Yazen Ghannam wrote:
> A deferred error is an uncorrectable error whose handling can be
> deferred, i.e. it's not urgent. This affects the system behavior, but
> I'm now thinking that this shouldn't affect users' behavior. I think it
> would be simpler to just classify deferred errors as uncorrectable
> errors so that users treat them as such.

Why would we want to lie about deferred errors being uncorrectable?

And I believe deferred errors can be handled differently like freeze the
process using the page instead of killing it. And so on...

Why aren't you simply adding the documentation about
HW_EVENT_ERR_DEFERRED and be done with it? The downstream path like
tracepoint and all can handle all that just fine.

> Boris,
> Can we drop or revert commit d12a969ebbfc?

No can do. It is a public branch and there's no touching it.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web