From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752203AbdHNTem (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Aug 2017 15:34:42 -0400 Received: from mail.skyhub.de ([5.9.137.197]:47758 "EHLO mail.skyhub.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752061AbdHNTek (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Aug 2017 15:34:40 -0400 Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 21:34:32 +0200 From: Borislav Petkov To: "Kani, Toshimitsu" Cc: "linux-edac@vger.kernel.org" , "lenb@kernel.org" , "mchehab@kernel.org" , "tony.luck@intel.com" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "rjw@rjwysocki.net" , "linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/7] ghes_edac: avoid multiple calls to dmi_walk() Message-ID: <20170814193432.mjldfhfal5ba5dt7@pd.tnic> References: <20170811090414.GB9432@nazgul.tnic> <1502725671.2042.137.camel@hpe.com> <20170814162436.lta5xm742hh6g7yk@pd.tnic> <1502728754.2042.139.camel@hpe.com> <20170814170552.j3lhzvnwlpz75y4g@pd.tnic> <1502732561.2042.141.camel@hpe.com> <20170814180526.wtfjzgc6uye2qtx6@pd.tnic> <1502734083.2042.143.camel@hpe.com> <20170814183551.sgk2i7lxpmpyodhv@pd.tnic> <1502736750.2042.145.camel@hpe.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1502736750.2042.145.camel@hpe.com> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 07:02:15PM +0000, Kani, Toshimitsu wrote: > I do not know how likely we see such case, but the code should be > written according to the spec. Well, then you'll have to make ghes_edac_report_mem_error() reentrant. Which doesn't look that hard as the only thing it really needs from struct ghes_edac_pvt are those string buffers. I guess you can try to do the simplest thing first and allocate them on the stack. -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.