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

Groups > linux.kernel > #1724097 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH v4 3/5] ghes_edac: add platform check to enable ghes_edac

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCH v4 3/5] ghes_edac: add platform check to enable ghes_edac Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> - 2017-08-31 13:00 +0200
    Re: [PATCH v4 3/5] ghes_edac: add platform check to enable ghes_edac "Kani, Toshimitsu" <toshi.kani@hpe.com> - 2017-08-31 18:20 +0200
      Re: [PATCH v4 3/5] ghes_edac: add platform check to enable ghes_edac Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> - 2017-08-31 19:00 +0200

#1724097 — Re: [PATCH v4 3/5] ghes_edac: add platform check to enable ghes_edac

On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 04:54:45PM -0600, Toshi Kani wrote:
> The ghes_edac driver was introduced in 2013 [1], but it has not
> been enabled by any distro yet.  This driver obtains error info
> from firmware interfaces, which are not properly implemented on
> many platforms, as the driver always emits the messages below:
> 
>  This EDAC driver relies on BIOS to enumerate memory and get error reports.
>  Unfortunately, not all BIOSes reflect the memory layout correctly
>  So, the end result of using this driver varies from vendor to vendor
>  If you find incorrect reports, please contact your hardware vendor
>  to correct its BIOS.
> 
> To get out from this situation, add a platform check to selectively
> enable the driver on the platforms that are known to have proper
> firmware implementation.  Platform vendors can add their platforms
> to the list when they support ghes_edac.
> 
> "ghes_edac.force_load=1" skips this platform check.
> 
> [1]: https://lwn.net/Articles/538438/
> Signed-off-by: Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@hpe.com>
> Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
> Cc: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@kernel.org>
> Cc: Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>
> ---
>  drivers/edac/ghes_edac.c |   29 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
>  1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/edac/ghes_edac.c b/drivers/edac/ghes_edac.c
> index 8d904df..0030a09 100644
> --- a/drivers/edac/ghes_edac.c
> +++ b/drivers/edac/ghes_edac.c
> @@ -38,6 +38,10 @@ static struct ghes_edac_pvt *ghes_pvt;
>   */
>  static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(ghes_lock);
>  
> +/* Set 1 to skip the platform check */
> +static bool __read_mostly ghes_edac_force_load;

It is static - "force_load" as a bool name is enough.

> +module_param_named(force_load, ghes_edac_force_load, bool, 0);

ERROR: Use 4 digit octal (0777) not decimal permissions
#53: FILE: drivers/edac/ghes_edac.c:43:
+module_param_named(force_load, ghes_edac_force_load, bool, 0);

This last param is @perm: visibility in sysfs. Why not visible in sysfs?

> +
>  /* Memory Device - Type 17 of SMBIOS spec */
>  struct memdev_dmi_entry {
>  	u8 type;
> @@ -415,6 +419,15 @@ void ghes_edac_report_mem_error(struct ghes *ghes, int sev,
>  	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&ghes_lock, flags);
>  }
>  
> +/*
> + * Known systems that are safe to enable this module.
> + * "ghes_edac.force_load=1" skips this check if necessary.

Put this second sentence over the parameter definition.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

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

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1724389

On Thu, 2017-08-31 at 12:56 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 04:54:45PM -0600, Toshi Kani wrote:
 :
> > ---
> >  drivers/edac/ghes_edac.c |   29 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> >  1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/edac/ghes_edac.c b/drivers/edac/ghes_edac.c
> > index 8d904df..0030a09 100644
> > --- a/drivers/edac/ghes_edac.c
> > +++ b/drivers/edac/ghes_edac.c
> > @@ -38,6 +38,10 @@ static struct ghes_edac_pvt *ghes_pvt;
> >   */
> >  static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(ghes_lock);
> >  
> > +/* Set 1 to skip the platform check */
> > +static bool __read_mostly ghes_edac_force_load;
> 
> It is static - "force_load" as a bool name is enough.

Will do.

> > +module_param_named(force_load, ghes_edac_force_load, bool, 0);
> 
> ERROR: Use 4 digit octal (0777) not decimal permissions
> #53: FILE: drivers/edac/ghes_edac.c:43:
> +module_param_named(force_load, ghes_edac_force_load, bool, 0);
> 
> This last param is @perm: visibility in sysfs. Why not visible in
> sysfs?

I followed in the footsteps of 'ghes_disable', which is also a kernel
boot option and uses 0.

> > +
> >  /* Memory Device - Type 17 of SMBIOS spec */
> >  struct memdev_dmi_entry {
> >  	u8 type;
> > @@ -415,6 +419,15 @@ void ghes_edac_report_mem_error(struct ghes
> > *ghes, int sev,
> >  	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&ghes_lock, flags);
> >  }
> >  
> > +/*
> > + * Known systems that are safe to enable this module.
> > + * "ghes_edac.force_load=1" skips this check if necessary.
> 
> Put this second sentence over the parameter definition.

Will do.

Thanks,
-Toshi

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

#1724418

On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 04:17:07PM +0000, Kani, Toshimitsu wrote:
> I followed in the footsteps of 'ghes_disable', which is also a kernel
> boot option and uses 0.

Ok, ghes_disable comment says that using module_param() is easier.
ghes_edac is not a module but then __setup() is for "really core code".

Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.rst also talks about
core_param() but that's #ifndef MODULE. So module_param() it is.

-- 
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