From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.skyhub.de (mail.skyhub.de [5.9.137.197]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ml01.01.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2A6852194D3B9 for ; Tue, 6 Nov 2018 10:07:38 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2018 19:07:35 +0100 From: Borislav Petkov Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] nfit, mce: validate the mce->addr before using it Message-ID: <20181106180735.GM13712@zn.tnic> References: <20181026003729.8420-1-vishal.l.verma@intel.com> <20181026003729.8420-2-vishal.l.verma@intel.com> <20181106145137.GJ13712@zn.tnic> <20181106175341.GK13712@zn.tnic> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: linux-nvdimm-bounces@lists.01.org Sender: "Linux-nvdimm" To: Dan Williams Cc: "Luck, Tony" , linux-nvdimm , stable , linux-edac@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Nov 06, 2018 at 10:02:46AM -0800, Dan Williams wrote: > Just general cautiousness, I'm not opposed to squashing them. Nah, I can keep them separate - I was just wondering why. > mce_usable_address() should not have any sensitivity to NVDIMM vs DRAM > MCEs. Ok. Thx. -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply. _______________________________________________ Linux-nvdimm mailing list Linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-nvdimm