Re: [PATCH 1/6] HWPOISON: clean up memory_failure() vs. __memory_failure()

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>]

* Borislav Petkov <bp@amd64.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 08:47:49AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > -/* dummy to break dependency. actual code is in mm/memory-failure.c */
> > > -void __attribute__((weak)) memory_failure(unsigned long pfn, int vector)
> > > +#ifndef CONFIG_MEMORY_FAILURE
> > > +int memory_failure(unsigned long pfn, int vector, int flags)
> > >  {
> > >  	printk(KERN_ERR "Action optional memory failure at %lx ignored\n", pfn);
> > 
> > Btw., while at it, could we phrase this message in a more 
> > obvious way to users, such as 'Non-fatal memory failure at 
> > %lx ignored'?
> 
> Yeah, that's might not be as correct as we want it to be. AO 
> means it is an uncorrectable error, i.e. it will become fatal 
> if we'd consumed it, but it isn't that now because we just saw 
> it passing by in the cacheline...
> 
> Maybe "Fatal, unconsumed error ignored..."

There's also the distinction that tells us which context is 
affected by an error: the currently executing task/mm, or some 
other one.

So you can keep the terminology i guess lacking a better 
alternative, i just wanted to point out that it's likely 
confusing to users.

Thanks,

	Ingo