From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752023AbeEKQMb (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 May 2018 12:12:31 -0400 Received: from mail-oi0-f68.google.com ([209.85.218.68]:35635 "EHLO mail-oi0-f68.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751228AbeEKQM1 (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 May 2018 12:12:27 -0400 X-Google-Smtp-Source: AB8JxZq2M7nmRs2SRTck0xGHQzpYCF/OVgO6GqrcyYz6vLURK0Cci3AcSDkka6k0eEUAL9epj2WdhQ== Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v4 2/3] acpi: apei: Rename ghes_severity() to ghes_cper_severity() To: Borislav Petkov Cc: alex_gagniuc@dellteam.com, austin_bolen@dell.com, shyam_iyer@dell.com, "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Len Brown , Tony Luck , Mauro Carvalho Chehab , Robert Moore , Erik Schmauss , Tyler Baicar , Will Deacon , James Morse , Shiju Jose , "Jonathan (Zhixiong) Zhang" , Dongjiu Geng , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-edac@vger.kernel.org, devel@acpica.org References: <20180430212836.7807-1-mr.nuke.me@gmail.com> <20180430213358.8319-1-mr.nuke.me@gmail.com> <20180430213358.8319-2-mr.nuke.me@gmail.com> <20180511153947.GC12705@pd.tnic> <56d445b2-ace3-6ee2-9699-f2a684518de9@gmail.com> <20180511155833.GE12705@pd.tnic> From: "Alex G." Message-ID: Date: Fri, 11 May 2018 11:12:24 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20180511155833.GE12705@pd.tnic> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 05/11/2018 10:58 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 10:45:49AM -0500, Alex G. wrote: >> >> >> On 05/11/2018 10:39 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote: >>> On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 04:33:51PM -0500, Alexandru Gagniuc wrote: >>>> ghes_severity() is a misnomer in this case, as it implies the severity >>>> of the entire GHES structure. Instead, it maps one CPER value to a >>>> monotonically increasing number. >>> >>> ... as opposed to CPER severity which is something else or what is this >>> formulation trying to express? >>> >> >> CPER madness goes like this: > > Let's slow down first. Why is it a "CPER madness"? Maybe this is clear > in your head but I'm not in it. > >> 0 - Recoverable >> 1 - Fatal >> 2 - Corrected >> 3 - None > > If you're quoting this: I'm quoting ACPI 6.2, Table 18-381 Generic Error Data Entry, though I'm certain they got that from the efi spec. > enum { > CPER_SEV_RECOVERABLE, > CPER_SEV_FATAL, > CPER_SEV_CORRECTED, > CPER_SEV_INFORMATIONAL, > }; > > that last 3 is informational. > >> As you can see, the numbering was created by crackmonkeys. GHES_* is an >> internal enum that goes up in order of severity, as you'd expect. > > So what are you trying to tell me - that those CPER numbers are not > increasing?! > > Why does that even matter? Because the GHES structure uses CPER values, but all the code is written to use GHES_SEV_ values. GHES_SEV_ is a made up enum, specifically for linux. Sure, the return in ghes_sec_pcie_severity() should say GHES_SEV_RECOVERABLE, but that is a Freudian slip rather than intentional typing. Thank you for catching that :) Alex