Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] RAS: Report all ARM processor CPER information to userspace

[Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>]

On Thu, Jul 11, 2024 at 08:28:52AM +0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> In addition to those data, it also exports two fields that are
> parsed by the GHES driver when firmware reports it, e. g.:
> 
> - error severity
> - cpu logical index

s/cpu/CPU/g

check your whole set pls.

> Report all of these information to userspace via trace uAPI, So that
> userspace can properly record the error and take decisions related
> to cpu core isolation according to error severity and other info.
> 
> After this patch, all the data from ARM Processor record from table

Avoid having "This patch" or "This commit" in the commit message. It is
tautologically useless.

Also, do

$ git grep 'This patch' Documentation/process

for more details.

...

> [mchehab: modified patch description, solve merge conflicts and fix coding style]
> Fixes: e9279e83ad1f ("trace, ras: add ARM processor error trace event")
> Signed-off-by: Shengwei Luo <luoshengwei@huawei.com>
> Signed-off-by: Jason Tian <jason@os.amperecomputing.com>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Ferguson <danielf@os.amperecomputing.com>

What is this SOB chain trying to tell me?

All those folks handled the patch?

> Tested-by: Shiju Jose <shiju.jose@huawei.com>
> Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@kernel.org>
> Reviewed-by: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>
> Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
> Link: https://uefi.org/specs/UEFI/2.10/Apx_N_Common_Platform_Error_Record.html#arm-processor-error-section
> ---
>  drivers/acpi/apei/ghes.c | 11 ++++-----
>  drivers/ras/ras.c        | 45 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>  include/linux/ras.h      | 16 +++++++++++---
>  include/ras/ras_event.h  | 48 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
>  4 files changed, 103 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)

...

> -void log_arm_hw_error(struct cper_sec_proc_arm *err)
> +void log_arm_hw_error(struct cper_sec_proc_arm *err, const u8 sev)
>  {
> -	trace_arm_event(err);
> +	struct cper_arm_err_info *err_info;
> +	struct cper_arm_ctx_info *ctx_info;
> +	u8 *ven_err_data;
> +	u32 ctx_len = 0;
> +	int n, sz, cpu;
> +	s32 vsei_len;
> +	u32 pei_len;
> +	u8 *pei_err;
> +	u8 *ctx_err;
> +
> +	pei_len = sizeof(struct cper_arm_err_info) * err->err_info_num;
> +	pei_err = (u8 *)err + sizeof(struct cper_sec_proc_arm);
> +
> +	err_info = (struct cper_arm_err_info *)(err + 1);
> +	ctx_info = (struct cper_arm_ctx_info *)(err_info + err->err_info_num);
> +	ctx_err = (u8 *)ctx_info;
> +	for (n = 0; n < err->context_info_num; n++) {
> +		sz = sizeof(struct cper_arm_ctx_info) + ctx_info->size;
> +		ctx_info = (struct cper_arm_ctx_info *)((long)ctx_info + sz);
> +		ctx_len += sz;
> +	}
> +
> +	vsei_len = err->section_length - (sizeof(struct cper_sec_proc_arm) +
> +					  pei_len + ctx_len);
> +	if (vsei_len < 0) {
> +		pr_warn(FW_BUG
> +			"section length: %d\n", err->section_length);
> +		pr_warn(FW_BUG
> +			"section length is too small\n");
> +		pr_warn(FW_BUG
> +			"firmware-generated error record is incorrect\n");

No need to break those lines.

> +		vsei_len = 0;
> +	}
> +	ven_err_data = (u8 *)ctx_info;
> +
> +	cpu = GET_LOGICAL_INDEX(err->mpidr);
> +	/* when return value is invalid, set cpu index to -1 */

Obvious comment - no need for it.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette