From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751268AbeAWKJ4 (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Jan 2018 05:09:56 -0500 Received: from szxga04-in.huawei.com ([45.249.212.190]:4676 "EHLO huawei.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751154AbeAWKJy (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Jan 2018 05:09:54 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 3/7] acpi: apei: Add SEI notification type support for ARMv8 From: gengdongjiu To: James Morse CC: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , References: <1515254577-6460-1-git-send-email-gengdongjiu@huawei.com> <1515254577-6460-4-git-send-email-gengdongjiu@huawei.com> <5A663DEC.8080804@arm.com> <168c3f61-0d11-13a4-c383-1f6a97d0ef37@huawei.com> Message-ID: <53566b7c-d686-66be-ee84-a6a6257b526a@huawei.com> Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 18:07:52 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <168c3f61-0d11-13a4-c383-1f6a97d0ef37@huawei.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.142.68.147] X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org sorry fix a typo. On 2018/1/23 17:23, gengdongjiu wrote: >> There are problems with doing this: >> >> Oct. 18, 2017, 10:26 a.m. James Morse wrote: >> | How do SEA and SEI interact? >> | >> | As far as I can see they can both interrupt each other, which isn't something >> | the single in_nmi() path in APEI can handle. I thinks we should fix this >> | first. >> >> [..] >> >> | SEA gets away with a lot of things because its synchronous. SEI isn't. Xie >> | XiuQi pointed to the memory_failure_queue() code. We can use this directly >> | from SEA, but not SEI. (what happens if an SError arrives while we are >> | queueing memory_failure work from an IRQ). >> | >> | The one that scares me is the trace-point reporting stuff. What happens if an >> | SError arrives while we are enabling a trace point? (these are static-keys >> | right?) >> | >> | I don't think we can just plumb SEI in like this and be done with it. >> | (I'm looking at teasing out the estatus cache code from being x86:NMI only. >> | This way we solve the same 'cant do this from NMI context' with the same >> | code'.) >> >> >> I will post what I've got for this estatus-cache thing as an RFC, its not ready >> to be considered yet. Yes, I know you are dong that. Your serial's patch will consider all above things, right? If your patch can be consider that, this patch can based on your patchset. thanks. > >>