From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DD57C3A59F for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2019 14:59:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3185823407 for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2019 14:59:09 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=alien8.de header.i=@alien8.de header.b="SSLnQ5dV" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1730753AbfHZO7J (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Aug 2019 10:59:09 -0400 Received: from mail.skyhub.de ([5.9.137.197]:46166 "EHLO mail.skyhub.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1730725AbfHZO7I (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Aug 2019 10:59:08 -0400 Received: from zn.tnic (p200300EC2F065700151C403A4EBA2CC9.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [IPv6:2003:ec:2f06:5700:151c:403a:4eba:2cc9]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.skyhub.de (SuperMail on ZX Spectrum 128k) with ESMTPSA id 6FD251EC058B; Mon, 26 Aug 2019 16:59:07 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=alien8.de; s=dkim; t=1566831547; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:in-reply-to: references:references; bh=lyPGmPd5v4iVdl12WaU/uNVIbYt5hdCcXZcNjYUv204=; b=SSLnQ5dVp+wvHtszCOowYsZbPTjQzECygWh6I30y3Ma9yHvj2Zq/MaSiPnAnuohbQJbNpv qS/BBy3vWNxUjCvxBDZjngZW0j6sa2a8ifgEM/oCBBKv4RgwDY+fGl6WFhzL/RwDpmjrcm KuXuiDPcDlWU+0PMS3g2IovTlrB2pf4= Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2019 16:59:01 +0200 From: Borislav Petkov To: "Ghannam, Yazen" Cc: Adam Borowski , "linux-edac@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/8] AMD64 EDAC fixes Message-ID: <20190826145901.GH27636@zn.tnic> References: <20190821235938.118710-1-Yazen.Ghannam@amd.com> <20190822005020.GA403@angband.pl> <20190823153739.GC28379@zn.tnic> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: linux-edac-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-edac@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 02:19:18PM +0000, Ghannam, Yazen wrote: > I was tracking down the failure with ECC disabled, and that seems to be it. > > So I think we should return 0 "if (!edac_has_mcs())", because we'd only get > there if ECC is disabled on all nodes and there wasn't some other initialization > error. > > I'll send a patch for this soon. > > Adam, would you mind testing this patch? You can't return 0 when ECC is disabled on all nodes because then the driver remains loaded without driving anything. That silly userspace needs to understand that ENODEV means "stop trying to load this driver". -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.